Member Info for Daisan

Share price going up on small volume suggests that it should be difficult to buy. And yet I can buy relatively easily. I can only think of one scenario where that would be the case. But quite happy for it to go up.

Well, apparently more than expected which seems a trifle overdone!

Yeah. Been watching it with interest. Not sure how much this will affect AAZ given the fact that the current operations are not in the disputed zone and the properties that are are attributed with zero value. Still, it would be better not to have a war on your doorstep!

Reverse takeover and renamed SALV.

Look. Of course it is undervalued compared to its assets. But the key point is what is the catalyst to change this? There are two possibilities. Firstly, selling an asset. Secondly, getting funding to production. Is either of these likely in the short term? I don't think so. The sentiment towards miners is going to have to change considerably for that to happen which means that this news is not likely in 2016 I believe. Hopefully I am wrong but without one of these catalysts the share price is unlikely to react positively in a sustained fashion. The cash on hand keeps them in the game to hopefully tide them over to funding but doesn't of itself support a higher share price owing to the high cash burn.

Great responses Oilmagnet477 and leapfrog. Certainly understand the potential of KRS better now. Quite surprised that the cash costs are so low. I used to invest in Norseman Gold and the cash costs were pretty high but it was largely narrow vein stuff. Good luck.

I won't post this on KRS board for fear of being launched upon! Normally I would agree that a company just entering production is probably a better bet (although it can go wrong!) but I find it difficult to value KRS on the basis of its highly unusual model. KRS's gold operations are not theirs. They have agreed 'tribute agreements' and pay very high royalties plus processing costs. I have no idea how profitable that makes the transaction and, as such, it is difficult to assess to what extent it should be valued. I can well imagine others will have made the necessary calculations and come to the conclusion that it is profitable and provides the necessary cash flow to develop their other assets. Good luck to them but as they don't own the assets they are producing from, it is not something I will invest in. A very interesting and, on AIM, I believe unique model.

Who mentioned Bitcoin? I mentioned BitGold as a relevant model for KGLD.

Dibs, KGLD do not need the expertise? Complete garbage.

Your original thread sums up KGLD pretty well. Enough money to TREAD WATER until mid 2017. Honestly, why do you want to invest in a company that is going to TREAD WATER for the next year? An honest company KGLD and the top man seems like an honest guy. But that is not going to build a successful company unfortunately. I looked at my pros and cons list and the pros seem to have got much weaker and the cons much stronger.

Timeless, This is one of those rare occasions when I agree with you.... ish. The company you point to is interesting but a far more interesting one is BitGold. Very interesting indeed and a great team and backing building it. Which is where it diverges from Kolar. Why would you invest in a company with no expertise in this area?

Otago, Not sure whether the tax losses are quite that high (certainly Timeless didn't think so in his previous post) and whilst I agree that these are of value it is difficult to value a company purely on tax losses. There is value here and I remain invested in this, despite the usual malicious suggestions from Timeless, but currently it is difficult to see what will trigger this value being realised. Certainly I don't see MTR achieving that. Presumably Timeless will be suggesting that they get into Fintech.

Difficult to view that news as anything other than a disaster. Cash reduced as expected (if not more so). NAV down again as anticipated. Awful results from GMSI. I confess I didn't expect that. I was anticipating both an increase in resource and maybe some in the measured category. This news is poor. Book value on this is too high in my opinion. No funds to provide to maintain their stake which will inevitably be diluted. They should sell this. Still no movement on the tendering process. No control over this obviously. Cash enough to survive for a while but to do what? Any direction they go requires cash and they only have enough to keep themselves going not to invest. The result of the strategic review smacks of MTR. Fintech! I am a big fan of the technology surrounding bitcoin but what the hell do these guys know about this? They have spent the last years trying to get a goldmine going! It will be interesting to see how much money they can raise at what price. Pretty convinced that there will now be a fund raising as they will need it to do something whatever the rationale. Twitter seems to have a few HNWIs supporting it that look like they will be easily parted from their money.......

Oh yes. MTR are wxceptional at unlocking value. Remind me where exactly?

Jeansie, I don't think that Korg is concerned about them going bust but rather about the share price going up. The Chairman's loans give reassurance about the former but the lack of director buying does not suggest optimism from them about the direction of the share price.

Unfortunately not a shred of optimism in that set of results. Cash dwindled by almost $3m over the year and they now have $4.7m left. At the rate of burn ($250k per month) they should last another year. But the tone of the report is so downbeat that it is hard to feel that there is a solution around the corner to funding Karchiga and they have been singularly unsuccessful in selling anything either. To be fair most of this is not their fault, they are just seeking to do these things at a dismal time for miners. Not sure where they go from here. They are cheap but difficult to see what is going to be the spur to unlocking value. Cash should be ignored in terms of valuation currently as they are burning it at a rate of knots. It does, however, keep them in the game for now. An announcement around funding or selling an asset (any of them!) is required but from this report looks unlikely in the near term. Expect more pressure on the share price despite the valuation.

Always frustrating. But at least they are not selling! For me director selling is more of a signal than director buying. I recall being in AGQ when the CEO sold £1m worth of shares. Marked the high and it fell 99% from there. Always sell when the directors sell.

Understand completely and I cannot come out with soothing words that we'll all be millionaires tomorrow like many on these boards believe. What I would say is that share prices that have crashed tend to struggle initially to recover because the old investors just look for a way to get out on any sign of strength. What you really need to do is reassess companies as they are now and how you feel they will perform in the future rather than just looking at your past experience. I have stated on here that I expect gold in the short/medium time frame to go down to the point where it may challenge or even surpass the lows of the second half of last year. Gold miners will inevitably follow if that scenario pans out. However, in the long term I see a very bright future for gold indeed and companies like AAZ will benefit enormously. It needs to survive for the next few months and I expect it to be able to having ridden out the last few months.

Turgay, I sympathise. I have invested in miners for years and the last few have been the worst I have come across. My portfolio has been smashed during this time. But we are getting close to the point where gold miners are going to perform very well I believe.

Well, you didn't say NAV in your first post and Jolly didn't call it BS so a bit premature to start abusing holders. The NAV at June 2015 was certainly about 4p per share. Pretty much all miners trade at a significant discount to this (KGLD less than most now) but it does provide some support. Not sure why you think the NAV would have gone up by the end December 2015 (which the interim report will cover). The record on NAV over the last few periods is: June 2011 £14.9m December 2011 £14.1m June 2012 £13.1m December 2012 £12m June 2013 £11.1m December 2013 £9.7m June 2014 £5.5m December 2014 £4.9m June 2015 £4.2m This fall has pretty much been associated with the drop in cash and cash equivalents I think even the most one eyed observer of this would suggest that this is a downward trend. I am not sure why this position should have started to reverse itself in this particular quarter when they pretty much state on 8th December that the cash and cash equivalents have gone down by £600k from 30th June 2015 at that point. So at that point the NAV is likely to have been about £3.5-3.6m or about 3.5p per share. While we are looking at the cash drain, it is frankly unbelievable what the CEO was paid. I thought that the liability associated with his sacking was high but if you look at previous final results this guy was paid a basic pay of £250k per year (the COO not much less at £235k) and in 2012 his total remuneration was £465k! A very tight ship indeed..... They have clearly realised that this is unsustainable which is why the CEO was sacked. From a cash preservation issue this was absolutely the right thing to do if very late in the day! But if this has improved the company from a credibiltiy/delivery point of view, what the hell were they paying him £250k year after year for? Actually, all this is by the by. The key questions are: 1. Will GMSI improve the resource through their drilling campaign? I suspect that they will, but by how much? And will any be in the key Measured category? 2. WIll the Government finally get off its butt with respect to the mining licences? If so, will KGLD's tender win? Note: it is a tender NOT a done deal. 3. Will their cash last long enough to give them the opportunity to reap the rewards? This is the key question of course and the cash conservation measures are a positive if a little late in the day. Their burn must be considerably less (about £25k a month I suspect) as a result of sacking their CEO.