The latest Investing Matters Podcast with Jean Roche, Co-Manager of Schroder UK Mid Cap Investment Trust has just been released. Listen here.
Most of the recent discussion has been about ANZA as a whole rather than individual areas of it. Whilst ANZA's way too big for us, could some sort of deal be struck for us to have say 100% of eg Pepas or APTA whilst MMA are deciding on rest of ANZA. Naturally, our % in rest of ANZA would reduce. This would surely be a way out of the current limbo and would allow us to at least progress one area towards a JORC, which Brad would ideally like, whether with or without a smaller JV partner.
Legalwolf, I assumed he meant the real decision makers at Newmont/Agnico don't know of us (agreed, a poor sign) rather than project managers, who he's spoken to. I could be wrong giving him the benefit of the doubt, especially when he hasn't earnt it.
If we are to believe yesterday's interview, it now seems that Newmont are the ones who are keenest to shelve project and that Agnico could be willing to continue if £ burden is shared with another major. This contrasts with verbal statements around the time of 3rd quarter update that it was just Agnico who wanted to change the T&Cs in the contract (I remember Brad said we'd want something in return). I wouldn't refer to Agnico wanting someone new sharing the costs in place of Newmont as changing T&Cs, nor would I refer to someone wanting to terminate contract as simply wanting to change it, so what did they want to amend and could they still be keen on proceeding with new terms agreed? What I can't understand is why Brad was saying Agnico mainly problematic then and yet mainly Newmont now? I appreciate events may have moved on, but I would have thought an explanation is due on this aspect too. It may, of course, be Brad making it up as he goes along.
Time is not our friend, nor can we go it alone. I feel Brad needs to establish ASAP whether getting value for their would-be 51% or having no commitment to further time and money expenditure on ANZA is of greater concern to MMA so we can plan accordingly.
Whether AGEOS or breaktwister is correct about when Phase 2 starts, the latter is certainly correct in it needing to start ASAP, if it hasn't already done so.
Hi Jackbal,
I don't know if the following e-mail, 1st posted by myself on 19th Dec 2021 helps, but it can't hurt in clarifying governance concerns with the Nomad. Had it been a different time of year or if we had more time on our side, we might have taken things further at the time. We also fell for Brad's positivity going forward!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: Upcoming vote at AGM19 Dec 2021 19:13
Maybe I'm reading this incorrectly, but I don't believe we've legally been given sufficient notice of the AGM, and that's to put aside the questionable tactics of just posting on a web site.
According to rules for public companies, there needs to be 21 days notice for AGM, and we only received 20 (3rd Dec RNS & 23rd Dec AGM). This doesn't apply if 95% approve of shorter timescale - god knows how that works in practise!
As far as putting notice of AGM on website instead, the Cos. Act requires members (shareholders) to be told it's on web site too for former to be validated.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/13/chapter/3/crossheading/notice-of-meetings/enacted?view=plain
I'd appreciate others' opinions in case they read things differently. If others concur, can we try to first clarify, and better still stop, AGM meeting and vote by contacting Stock Exchange directly?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vox Markets, of course!
https://www.**********.co.uk/articles/traders-cafe-with-zak-mir-brad-george-ceo-orosur-mining-fdde23a
I have to say I find it difficult to believe that we're in a situation whereby Brad claims he is not given as much info as he'd ideally like, from the big 2, to RNS to the market, but he's at same time in possession of too much info and thus precluded from buying. We can't be in some sort of 'no man' s land', surely?
Although the way we were advised of this AGM by OMI left much to be desired, I believe it was our brokers who finally let us down WRT voting rather than OMI shenanigans.
Whilst I'm not saying all brokers were as bad as mine, I received first e-mail from II on 22nd Dec stating ''Vote By 16th Dec'' for AGM on 23rd Dec. (I'd previously been told my vote would be made in time, but clearly it wouldn't). Suspect some other brokers, at least, operated similarly.
Having stated above, very happy with update and Bhargav's AGM reporting and a lot more confident for 2022.
Maybe I'm reading this incorrectly, but I don't believe we've legally been given sufficient notice of the AGM, and that's to put aside the questionable tactics of just posting on a web site.
According to rules for public companies, there needs to be 21 days notice for AGM, and we only received 20 (3rd Dec RNS & 23rd Dec AGM). This doesn't apply if 95% approve of shorter timescale - god knows how that works in practise!
As far as putting notice of AGM on website instead, the Cos. Act requires members (shareholders) to be told it's on web site too for former to be validated.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/13/chapter/3/crossheading/notice-of-meetings/enacted?view=plain
I'd appreciate others' opinions in case they read things differently. If others concur, can we try to first clarify, and better still stop, AGM meeting and vote by contacting Stock Exchange directly?
Thanks Chickenlegs , Impecunious2 and one or 2 others who replied on different threads. I'm afraid I don't believe Brad will change for the better and I find it telling that one of the few tweets of a non-obligatory nature we ever got (because it was nearby Royal Road Minerals) occurs when he wants our votes on these options. It leads me to believe he knew we wanted better communications, but couldn't be bothered for whatever reason.
The BOD have undone much of Iggy Sal's good work by dumping Brad on us and he's done himself no favours by his whole demeanour. Only reason not to attempt to replace him IMHO is if we know our majors specifically want him to stay.
I'm a long term holder here, despite this being my first post, and I don't know what's being said amongst the telegram group either. Whilst I'm delighted to see fellow investors co-ordinating with each other re voting against the 8m options, is it also worth asking whether we should go further still and try to remove Brad George?
Like others, I don't deny his knowledge as a geologist, but IMHO he is a liability as a CEO. I'm afraid I can't think of a single thing he's done well as a CEO and neither can I think of any examples of him taking on board comments from investors, who invariably have put in more £ than his derisory (for a CEO) amounts.
I've never liked the man since he tried to take credit for the share price rise after the 2nd major came onboard, which clearly had nothing to do with him, and my opinion of him has just got worse and worse, with no sign of improvement. Now I'm not sure I even trust him. I most definitely rate our assets, though!
So can we/should we attempt to remove him? Do we have to have a ready replacement? What are likely actions of the 2 majors re the suggestion? One thing's for sure, the lower the voting rights a CEO /director has the easier it is to replace them, all other factors being equal.
What's the consensus here? Good or bad idea?