Member Info for addicknt

NMM, that was my point.

Damers, yes, I heard the interview but that's wasn't my question. What interests me is why no mention appeared in the RNS?

Why wasn't the CIPA mentioned when a couple of weeks ago it was billed by DV as being imminent? ( no jokes please, they've all been made many times)

I believe Pbow speculated it may have something to do with Lomo Larga, or perhaps the government are holding back because we're disputing the levy?

What it doesn't indicate is a row-back by the government on such arrangements, as I've seen someone suggest. Don't forget, Atico Mining signed a CIPA for their La Plata mine on 17th September. However, it is strange our CIPA wasn't mentioned in last week's announcements.

NMM, agreed. I the last interview SC did with CS, it was very clear that Stackhouse was completely on top of the numbers. It was a very confident performance and I couldn't understand why he came in for so much flack.

RT, agreed. Having led a couple of turnarounds I know exactly how important the issue is and how disastrous failure to get a clean bill of health can be. Trying to persuade the credit insurers to continue to provide cover in these circumstances is extremely difficult and without their cover suppliers will only work on a cash upfront basis, which many companies cannot provide. Ultimately, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy ; no clean bill of health, no credit cover, insufficient cash to pay upfront = administration.

The Mather legacy issues. Gone but not forgotten.

Nal, thank you for proving my point. An auditors reputation rests upon it's ability to get the opinion section right.

It's also worth noting we are audited by the world's largest firm and not some back street hucksters. PwC are not immune to getting things wrong, but they put a lot of effort into avoiding doing so.

I look forward to your next piece of brilliant insight.

NKVD, thanks, I didn't know that.

NKVD, I believe he's an Aussie and is based there, so I doubt it. He describes himself as our full -time GC, which in itself is unusual as companies of our size rarely need someone full time in that role. Mind you, we have many things going on which will require legal input. Anyway, we now have a fill-time CS which is another Governance box ticked.

Our General Counsel, Ryan Wilson, who was briefly our Company Secretary in 2023, has been reappointed. Not exactly earth shattering news, but there you go...

Was Stackhouse performing the function?

It most certainly is NOT a formality - far from it. An accountants reputation rests on its ability to get this one statement right. And I suggest you re-read my comment. I didn't say we've failed to achieve one in the past, I said we've come close.

What does your last sentence actually mean? Audits are not an optional extra, they are compulsory. Neither Solgold or any other quoted company can choose not to have one completed.

NMM, I value your analysis, as I do Pbow's, but I disagree with your observation about the sign-off of the accounts.

The fact is for companies such as ours, which have no revenue and are in constant need of funding, a positive Going Concern statement is of critical importance. Failure to achieve one has numerous negative impacts, including its effect on our ability to raise more cash and being able to achieve decent terms with our suppliers. And then there's market perception. How many institutions are happy to buy shares in the market of a company which auditors have said may fail within the year? Not many.

There have been several occasions in the past when we've come close to not getting a clean bill of health and we've had to rely on a statement about our historic ability to raise more funds, even though at the year end we didn't have sufficient funds for the next 12 months.

You are wrong to 'expect' our auditors to sign-off and it's always a relief when they do.

Of critical importance is the fact the accounts have been signed off by PwC with a clean Going Concern report - with the usual caveats.

The three reports carry a great deal of info and it's going to take time to wade through them, but the remuneration report is interesting.

We settled with DC for a sum of A$ 950k. The DV options were a Sign-On Bonus and his base salary is $450k.

NMM, thanks.

I'm not sure why anyone ever expects new news to be contained in the Annual Results. Their purpose is to put flesh on the bones of events of the previous 12 months and to provide detailed financial information, which is out of date by the time of publication.

The key section is, in our case as a non-revenue business, the cash flow report and the analysis of costs contained in the p&l.

Orthern, I couldn't find the 2025 report either, and there wasn't a reference to the CIPA in the 'Building momentum' section of the RNS. Strange.

Didn't Dan confirm this in one of his interviews? Or am I imagining it?

Nal, I fully understand the sums of money involved in mining and the profits which are achievable...it explains why I'm invested here. Btw, I specifically didn't mention BHP as I no longer believe they're going to be one of the front runners when it comes to some form of corporate action.

As for FN, I'm afraid you don't understand how financial institutions work. In simple terms, if they make an offer of finance, the total amount, in this instance 750m, is effectively ring fenced and cannot be committed elsewhere. This is done in order to ensure a lending body complies with its capital adequacy requirements and explains why most financing arrangements have a Commitment Fee.

Sure, we have to hit the milestones, but FN are expecting to lend the full amount. It is not some form of wild punt.

Rich, he's been telling us it's uneconomic for years, which explains why FN have committed $750m to the project and regard it as one of their most important transactions. It also explains Jiangxi's investment. They must all be really stupid.