Member Info for addicknt

A Going concern statement has been issued. Whereas in the past the company has referred to the fact that it doesn't have sufficient cash to fund the development of the project, which we all knew, this time the warning is related to the funding of ordinary activities i.e expenses and further drilling.
This is a different and honest declaration and I for one, welcome it.

What this tells us is that the company was more or less out of cash and the BHP placing was a rescue deal. It was a stop-gap arrangement to allow the company time to either raise significant funds or to sell something (some of us said so at the time)
It also goes a long way to explain the radio silence.
In my opinion, NM has overplayed his hand. He's taken this to the wire and his ambition has brought us close to the edge. However, there is most definitely an upside to this; his hand has now been forced and he will HAVE to take some serious action. Let's just hope he's able to negotiate well from this position.

$23m in the bank as at 31 Dec. Insufficient cash for the next 12 months. Options:
1. Cash raise.
2. Disposal of non-core assets.
3. Farm-in.
4. Reduction of cash burn (this has already happened and is referenced by the reduction in drilling at Alpala due to "drought")

Okay, this sets the scene. We will definitely see some corporate action over the next period. Non-core assets may prove difficult to dispose of, so which asset do we have to sell which is worth a fortune?

Of course it's not "fundamental news related, schlemiel. It's simply punters cashing-in their chips.

I was slightly surprised to see the sp continue to rise after the last set of results. Normally, the presence of traders on AIM mitigates against a sustainable increase. Too much emphasis was placed upon the New half year presentation and it hasn't revealed anything new, with the consequent fall being almost inevitable.
Traders will do what traders do...it's a simple fact of life on AIM.
However, any significant fall over the next month will provide a fantastic opportunity to add shares and we will see another rise as we move closer to the next set of drilling results.

Very interesting comments from Biswas and I'm not sure why he make them.
Does it imply New are not currently in a position to stand their corner for a full funding round, or is he implying that NM is looking at the exit doors and New won't be in a position to bid? Or does he simply think that at this stage, the funding package would not be particularly attractive in terms of cost?
It almost reads as if it's a plea from Biswas to NM not to freeze them out, which I imagine suggests that the relationship is a bit strained. Regardless, I guess BHP will be sitting back relishing the comments. BTW, I've always thought BHP was a more likely suitor than New, and I still don't think this will get to production with SOLG as owners. In fact, every RNS containing results from other areas, which in turn reveal the vast scale of what we've got, confirms my view.

Sadly, they've only reached the second year of GCSE so far. It may be a while.

tricky, quite right.
There probably is a half-decent business there, but it appears to be marred by opacity (to put it mildly). And anyone who thinks KKR are likely to offer a vast premium needs to read Barbarians at the Gate. KKR are not warm and cuddly investors...they invented the concept of vulture capitalism.

E_AL, so you think the investigation into Shetty's holdings is a positive, do you? Hmm...

Look on the Stock Exchange website. You'll also note your other post was somewhat misleading.

no one has mentioned the other RNS, which looks anything but good.

Yes, I noticed. I also note you have more than twice as many shares as him!

some people find it boring, but in the background the referendum issue keeps rumbling on.
As I understood it, the people in Azuay were given 30 days to come up with some wording that the CC found acceptable in order to allow a referendum to go ahead in that province.
According to an article I saw yesterday, written by a Canadian mining company, they have failed to produce anything which is substantially different to the original wording which was rejected by the CC.
I don't know if that means a definitive rejection by the CC, or whether they've still got time to re-word it.
I also read somewhere that the Supreme Court may have overall jurisdiction on the matter and that it's stuffed full of government appointees, which in turn is obviously pro-mining.
The mystery continues.

Morning Jerry. I'm afraid I've had to deal with too many of them in my time and am more than a little contemptuous nowadays. Obviously, I don't include you in that description!

By the way, having institutions onboard can be a mixed blessing. It certainly provides an immediate uplift to the sp, but their subsequent actions can be damaging. and some management teams hate having to kowtow to some spotty herbert who claims to know more than they do.

Virtually all funds have very strict criteria as to what they can and cannot, invest in. Those criteria will include sector, size, profitability, management etc, etc. Of course, there are exceptions and these tend to be the much smaller funds who set their stall out as being higher risk.
I'm absolutely certain the presentation would have been aimed at those who are able to invest...in other words, our advisors would carefully target the audience. It will be very interesting to see if they had any success.

BBG, what was incorrect?

More tosh. There's nothing worse than when a company tries to make excuses.
The reason for the fall is the failure to hit deadlines and to provide the market with any information.
To be fair to the company, the referendum uncertainty doesn't help.

sorry, meant BBG.

BBC, analysts are never given this type of price sensitive information. The only people who will be aware are the company corporate broker and corporate finance advisor.