Member Info for Digittt

Agree...although there's been 2-3 days of chunky sells.

Is that an echo Util?

Lokan yes there are positives, I’m backing Mgmt and giving them a chance to deliver on higher production and hopefully CL. There are also risks.

I don't think the bondholders will get less. They will simply short the share immediately on making the election / once the price their election is priced at is known, and then they'll deliver their shares into that short. Maybe there's a spread between the election price and the immediate market price, but there may not be.

That wouldn’t be Mgmt’s plan. There’s no way of knowing the bond holders thinking until we see how it plays out. We may end up with up with a mix of behaviours from the different notes. As is said though….next year we then don’t give the approval to issue shares.

Correct...it is about maintaining good relationships with the bondholders who have given us rope to at least survive a little longer as we are.

If the bondholders asked for it now (they're entitled to), then we will get a sense for how things will play out on that. We don't know bondholders views...they may be short of cash and flogging their shares gets them their cash interest...so why not. Yes, I think it would hurt the SP, but unclear to me as to how much. In a negative sense it's actually an easier way to bleed more money from shareholders I think than a full blown wipeout of equity that might have happened without the restructuring..so if that was always the plan...ouch. But on the one note at least, it needs 51% of the bondholders to make the election and simply getting them to agree to the restructuring was difficult since they are a disparate bunch (I've said this before, straight quote from MH).

In short, yes...at the meeting MH clarified at my prompting that it was "best endeavours" (I think we will all say best efforts is close enough). At which point I immediately highlighted that this hadn't been made clear at all to s/hers (and noted the secretary furiously scribbling notes...I'm sure it never made it into the official minutes!). The answers given before were along the lines as it's complicated and there are multiple debt documents that all interrelate...but it was never directly answered. BTW - I'm a debt guy (not bonds, but have some experience with them). The resolutions I believe were more about resolution 2, which I hope they use wisely / at the right time for the right flexibility. Resolution 1 they had to ask for (as best endeavours). We will know shortly (coupon on one note due end of month I think) if the election is taken. And...the great news is, we only gave them an election until the next AGM. At that point it is clear as anything to us that it's best endeavours, so we can say no as we please.

JHFH...a question...when you post on other groups as JHFH, do you get stick for your name? May as well read as "NotHereForYourShare"? I guess Amur_isagogo (AMC) hasn't been given stick for his here, so maybe it answers itself.

And yes, I joke, and can vouch for JHFH. Have to be honest, I found L2 data overrated.

I think in terms of perspective you should join the other social media groups (discord, telegram one, a private twitter group)...I spend most of my time there trying to reel the rampers back in!

With eyes wide open, I do back management a little more proactively now. Not blindly...not rampily...but I do believe that MH is our best chance of success for the moment. There is always though going to be a slight sour taste in my mouth due to the history.

My position on mgmt changed from a month or so ago after a couple of chats with MH. Before that I was a lot more passive and much like most, irked. I chatted before the OGM and then at the OGM since I was one of 3 (but only 2 relevant) shareholders there, we had plenty of room and time and they offered it up. JP was there as well. Reading body language, and delivery of the message was fundamentally great and has been massively missed. I only decided my vote at the meeting. I think the 2 other s/hers there knew what they were going to vote before-hand. And my decision to support the resolutions was made even with me calling out in the meeting that I think they were not clear with shareholders on something pretty significant (read back to my best efforts thoughts on the notes interest election...I was right).

I like to think I gave them a flavour of the distrust - I even told them that on the TWTT sessions beforehand it felt like they were answering questions by committee...ie faceless behind a keyboard too scared to be confronted (much like here...errr)...it was very good to see MH engaged, and not pre-scripted.

Anyway...I waffle...just like ranger (OK, OK...I read the tea-leaves and unfiltered), so will stop now. Hopefully the above gives you a little sense of where I am coming from wrt mgmt.

Lokan - perhaps I was reading too much into it but there was a slight acknowledgement at the OGM that they got it wrong quoting timelines. Or at least I may have said it wasn't smart.

In terms of no coherent vision...we're miles from the company before that was almost entirely exploration / early stage dev with cowboy management (that's my nicest way of describing people who were pretty inept). But it's that prior management the burnt our capital as well as the money from the notes (I shudder to think of what we actually spent on Tapi Aike and the like to then hand over our share of the asset...I mentioned that at the OGM as well). The fact that we have some producing assets now is a massive step in the right direction. Yes it's unsexy...yes at some point we need to attach something more strategic to the plan (Bolivia will be that attempt I think), but we can't do that with a wobbily foundation. Hopefully at the moment we're all quibbling about how long it's taking the cement in the foundation to set...rather than we find out they were trying to build without one.

Util...(think I've been in ECHO since 2016, maybe 2017, ie a little earlier) . Angle? Only ever had one ID on LSE...actually only have one ID everywhere. Not sure what you're suggesting with that, happy for you to elaborate. The question for Ranger as well is "Why is he here?" If he's an investor, then based on his views, he should get out. If he's not an investor, his motives for lurking for a long time on this channel...where it's the only channel he's on on LSE (apart from Sound I think a long time ago) are questionable. It's not about it being wrong to have negative views on an investment...I've had / got plenty. It's about continually spouting negative views / looking for the most negative in anything while being an investor and that's the only thing you contribute. Either you shoudn't be an investor, or you aren't and you have other motives. I am patient and I do see value in what I hear from others negative or positive, but the above dictates why I would call him out as a troll.

Lokan - (my view) CL hasn't been progressed as relationships in Arg soured last year with our contractors as we held back payments as we had no cash. No cash definitely meant no CL progress. Now....our partner in CL wants to use their folks to do the work and it's going to take a while to get them into the country. Our alternative would be to get someone else locally to do it, but that requires contractors in Arg who we have relationships with willing to take credit risk in some form on us (and it also might irk our partner). Those relationships don't exist for the moment until we rebuild them/the trust. Any activity in Arg with contractors is likely to require cash upfront for the moment. While our cash position is starting to turn, any spare cash is being spent on the easier payback investment options of reopening what we shut. And that leads to why it will take a while to get to CL...well without some cash injection. Agree at current SP, an equity raise would be daft.

Util...as I said, I get just as irritated by permanent rampers. All I'm looking for is a balanced conversation. Modern day social media society though leads to people trying to take the most extreme positions because they believe they have safety in anonymity and they've been lead to believe that everything is an argument and that's how to win them. While extreme negatives and positives may balance out it doesn't lead to a balanced conversation. If you’re here, I’m assuming you’re also sat waiting to see progress. If not, why are you here? It's not like you're driving past a car wreck and slowing down...why are you here?

I do not sit here expecting ECHO to go gangbusters - but I do think there's more value potential there. I believe I understand why things like CL haven't been progressed so far, and I'm sticking around to see what happens if / when they are progressed. That's why I'm here.

Ranger, simple enough to filter you as I said before and away you go. I can’t stand permanent rampers, can’t stand permanent derampers. Rampers I understand as they hold shares and in their minds they’re doing something to help their investment valuations. Permanent derampers and you, I don’t understand. At best you are a troll. Can’t imagine you’re trying to play a short game with echo.

Oh and you’re wrong on The_Linns…go back and you’ll find he wasn’t the one collating names. And I’m not a conspiracy theorist like you on data. Data that needs to be kept private is kept private. My holdings in echo aren’t a risk and aren’t private.

Wow...misery loves company it seems. It's biotech...need more realistic timelines in your minds I think.

There should be some milestones achieved on CAR-T shortly (based on what he said in the last interview)...don't expect them to be transformational...might even hear something on CDX...but I'm not banking on it. Either way I think we need to all get used to waiting. I calibrate my views by recognizing that there is more of a chance of Vlad doing something good for the world than there is of us getting £350m a week back from Europe and sticking it into the NHS.

We should have the 6 monthly results released in the next 2 weeks, would be nice if it had a good message about further production uplifts...

If you really believe there is news incoming, then I think you ought to be not really fussed about days like today. Except if you expect the news to be them selling a stake to GlobalCo using recent pricing...then it sucks!

Ahh, fair enough. You can always let the company know...would have been good having more shareholders there, I expected there to be others. I intend to go to all meetings going forward...although that's likely only the AGM I suspect.

I read straight through and ignored their caution. Guess each to their own. Haven't got any other example to quote but I would assume most companies having shareholder meetings now would be attaching similar language.

There were no restrictions on attending the meeting. There were also about 30 to 40 empty seats waiting for attendees.