Member Info for Balanced66

MunnieTorx

Agree with everything

Those with alternative views are referred to as "trolls" and those with positive views, well, that's ok and no criticism levelled! No one is accused of being a tamper lol. Investing is about looking at both viewpoints. Market caps can go to zero, so that's not any help. Look at Bushveld at circa £13m market cap and people were saying the same thing about it not going any lower.

I'm not making any predictions on price going lower and I don't intend to buy any what's the point these small cap mining stocks are just a gamble where the only winners are the board of directors with their fat salaries and savvy traders.

Yes indeed. No cashflow for a while possibly. Look what happened to BMN. Progress here with scaling up the plant has been really slow.

When someone has a viable operation you come back and let us know.

In the meantime I have no time to waste answering hypothetical questions.

I see your still here. Shameful as this share price has risen from 10p when I understand you first started commenting. You have been proved wrong since all that time and on every occasion. Investing is about making money on the share and the company performing well in it's business both of those criteria have been met here. You're just too stubborn and perhaps embarrassed to admit it that you have been wrong on this share over the years.

There's an answer to all superficial weak assertions and questions. Regarding the current assertion how about strong barriers to entry.

Anyway, I don't know why people are still engaging with you when one of your favourite stocks where you must be heavily in loss is a company that may breach it's banking covenants soon.

I suppose most chat boards have people like you who don't mind making fools of themselves.

So is the thinking that they will need to apply for permission again to increase the tonnage? Well how long will that take then! It's taken years to get this permit. The calculations of profit are therefore inaccurate. They will be loss making until they can process enough to make some money.

Yes cue the next placing. That's all this company does!

A lot of strong buying wonder if there has been a leak like others suggest.

Dug

Why would people trust your "research" are you an expert in the area?

I agree with the general sentiment that things could be better but I personally wouldn't rely on your posts especially as you seemed to be the only one who couldn't understand the annual results announcement see the many posts from you on the morning of the 17th January when you were again clogging up the board as you misunderstood the results and others were telling you, you were wrong but you stuck to your misunderstanding!

DugWalker

Posted in: OBD

Posts: 484

Price: 34.00

No Opinion

RE: What matters.17 Jan 2024 07:15

So in the 3.5 months since end of the financial year we have sold 770 CiRT tests which is more than in 2022 & 2023 combined. It equates to an average of 220 per month equivalent to a monthly growth rate of 20% since we were told we had reached 90 a month back in July.

If that growth rate is maintained (more likely it will be surpassed) we get above 400 tests a month by end April this year.

If the reimbursement rate is still £2000 per month we will bring in enough.money to become profit making this year.

Fantastic news!

DugWalker

Posted in: OBD

Posts: 484

Price: 28.40

No Opinion

RE: Disapointed17 Jan 2024 08:37

@GMS. Sales have NOT been stagnant. They have sold 770 CiRT tests since the end of last financial year (Oct 31). On a monthly basis sales have grown by at least 20% per month since July last year and are probably sitting somewhere around 300 a month right now!

DugWalker

Posted in: OBD

Posts: 484

Price: 25.60

No Opinion

RE: Disapointed17 Jan 2024 08:57

The 770 sales figure is given in the section entitled Post Year End Highlights. There is no doubt in my mind that it is the total since October 1st last. Might be a more than a few regretting selling come 4:00 p.m. today

Dug

This is what I meant by repeatedly saying the same thing.

Nearly all your posts are about cash running out, a bigger trail is needed, competing tests and Transform.

I get your points and I'm sure others do as well but you are just regurgitating the same information over and over again. Lol.

Read the previous rns and can't see over $5m being mentioned as you claim. In case I missed it can you quote from the rns.

What the company does confirm however in yesterday's RNs is $2-$3m:

The Commercial Plan, as announced in the 2024 Polarean Strategy Update in February, remains in effect and the Company reaffirm the near term guidance of achieving revenues of US$2 million to US$3 million in 2024. A number of highly active discussions with academic and medical institutions are positive and ongoing

2024 revenue already ahead? Where have the 2024 revenue announcements been made? I've not seen any figures with the couple of product sales they have made.

According to the original revenue projections post FDA approval sales have been very poor.

Yes but that's in the rns quote below isn't it!

How do you think they increased production then?

I think it is just referring to the unplanned downtime. All mining operations have repairs, maintenance periods:

"Process Plant

During Q1 2024 most aspects of the process plant performed adequately with a high average recovery rate of 90.0% (Q4 2023: 85.9%).

Planned downtime included scheduled maintenance to the SAG mill girth gear. Unplanned downtime consisted mainly of repairs to the SAG mill girth gear, pinion and feed chute, to conveyor belt repairs/replacement, and to tails/return water lines."

Gold produced during Q1 2024 was 23,006 ounces (Q4 2023: 17,626 ounces) from ore milled in Q1 2024 of 581Kt (Q4 2023: 533Kt).

Mining operations were above forecast:

Mining Operations

Mining production of ore and waste for Q1 2024 was above forecast at 3.31Mt (Q4 2023: 2.83Mt), with a total of 678Kt of ore mined in Q1 2024 (Q4 2023: 534kt)."

Know what you're getting at and it's Aim. But we don't know if it's not written. There must be a contract for the loan there always is. Loan companies insist on these agreements.

It just seems to me that the company is trying to avoid a costly protracted dispute. No one wants a court debt claim. At the same time it's looking after shareholder money. It could easily have just paid them off as some posters were suggesting.

Yes that's always a risk.

But the company should be judged on such matters as the impressive turnaround, production levels and debt clearing. That's testament to management quality.

Exploring is not a costly process. So the risks are low as the free cash flow will be surplus to requirements in this respect. If there is gold to mine the mine will be built and the risk of raising funds and progressing is removed as you see so often with other companies.

Building a mine doesn't need to cost that much now - see the low cost mines being built by the likes of Mineral Alamos etc.

Untested management, yes the risks are higher.

Chartists often talk about Fibonacci pull backs. Even though this was still undervalued when it was over 5p the 5 year chart looked spikey even though the fundamentals supported the share price.

I guess we have had the pullback and the spikey chart has been corrected and the share can start it's ascent again.

Https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/commodities/stanley-druckenmiller-copper-investment-price-supply-demand-imbalance-evs-missiles-2024-5

Type this in your search engine to find the article if you can't access the above link:

Legendary investor Stanley Druckenmiller says copper is a great bet for the next 6 years because EVs, data centers, and missiles all depend on it.

Inflation is expected to fall later this year and/or real fears of a recession.

There is also the problem of the US $trillions debt which legislators have no solution for decreasing.

These may be some of the factors behind the push up in the last few days

Also worth noting as it can get lost in all the frantic activity is that the dispute is over the balance of 7.5% interest. So they are due $3m anyway.

Small change really.

This seems to be an over reaction.

Any dispute is limited to the known amounts it's not like we don't know what the maximum liability is here. The risk in these situations is when you don't know how big the amounts to be paid may be.

It's not in the companies interest to fall out with the big shareholders so the conciliatory approach imo even if they know they are right here.

JWB you were saying the same sort of things about POG and CEY. If you want to be taken seriously you will need to do a bit of research rather than coming out with these superficial statements.