The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
R.e. proof of share holdings, yes we would need that before calling an EGM for sure.
For the MVP of this I don't plan on incorporating that into the platform (I want to do this ASAP under the current circumstances), actually validating any file a user uploads as being authentic is a non trivial endeavour, as such it would require research on how to do that, then to implement it - perhaps something for the future, but my vision of the MVP of this thing would be that the creator of the "group" would input a link to a shared chat room (Telegram, Whatsapp, etc), the link to that chat room would be displayed to all users who join the group.
Once the target has been hit, collecting the proof of shares for instance could be done via communication in the chatroom.
Primary goal for the MVP is to firstly see if we have the number of shares required, and that these people are actively keen on pursuing the EGM (the requirement for them to hit a button somewhat regularly, rather than a one off "yeah i'll do that" much like a "like" on the internet), with those 2 things confirmed, collecting the proof of share holding will be a formality that can be sorted out in the shared chatroom of choice.
This rhetoric is us being managed is IMO completely unsubstantiated. Amur's social media accounts putting up "For sale" signs still to this day pain a different picture in my opinion.
Let's entertain that we are being managed for a moment - what is the objective of those that are managing us? Surely for Amur to enter into an arrangement(s) whereby they are being managed, the "manager" would have to be bringing on board something substantial, e.g. the capital to fund a significant, if not the entire project. Why then would the company be putting out "For sale" posts regularly on social media, whilst keeping shareholders in the dark? It makes no sense to me, why would the managing party use their influence to stop Amur releasing news to their investors, yet be OK with them putting up for sale signs via social media outlets? I can't think of an answer to that which "cuts the mustard".
I'm holding onto this investment, have a relatively low average (0.018p), but I have not seen anything that leaves me to think anything but the fact that Amur are in trouble, whether that be the TEO not stacking through the drill results not being as good as we've been lead to believe, a "political" issue, whatever - point being that I can see nothing that gives me confidence of the contrary.
In fact this has actually spurred me on to make a little side project, which makes collaborating with people over the internet easier, i.e. an online platform to help organise investors such as those in Amur to organise & coordinate themselves to call an EGM, i.e. I could set a target of needing X shares from the users that join my "group", each member inputs how many shares they own for example, and they all have to simply hit a button every X days (configurable), the idea there being that once you hit the target, you know that your users are still active keen on the objective, making coordinating calling an EGM a little bit easier. I'm coming for you RY ha ha!
Here you go
https://t.me/amur_minerals
I don't disagree, but that is just how people work isn't it.
As an example, it's daft for a lot of people to have a smartphone with such a powerful processor chip, separate on-board AI chip, 16/32 GB RAM, etc, etc, yet people want that, and they expect it. It's daft to buy a car that can go 0-60mph in 6 seconds, given one does not normally accelerate like that. What consumers expect, and what they need are two totally different things aren't they.
There is some logic in there though, with your ICE vehicle you do not generally go out every time in your car with a full tank of fuel, you do that safe in the knowledge that when you leave your house, you know that you can fuel it up in almost any village, and every town, city, motorway, etc. Simple fix when thinking logically there is to ensure the car is charged! But of course that requires effort, and sounds like a major inconvenience to a lot of people.
Agree here, i.e. Amur do need to get a wiggle on - Although one thing I will say is that having worked heavily in the EV industry (software-side) now for the past 3 years, there is one single thing that comes up every time in consumer feedback, as well as talking to your "average Joe" out on the street, at a bar, etc, and that is the issue of range, a.k.a "range anxiety".
People want higher ranges than what's generally on offer on the market right now, in the UK and some of the European market (that i've dealt with) this is a stopping point for potential buyers, i.e. this is stopping a lot of people purchasing an EV. Now whether or not the want for more range is always based on sound logic (do you need that range?) it is a major roadblock the EV industry needs to overcome, that along with the charging infrastructure itself.
I'm certainly no expert on LFP batteries, but given their lower energy density, this battery architecture still has a long way to go, i.e. it needs to surpass the capabilities of the NMC architecture, not just meet it, to gain consumer confidence.
Just some thoughts. Interesting article, and I am by no means saying LFP is not going to command a sizeable market share, I personally doubt it, but again, I am not an battery expert so do not have a great idea of how much they'll squeeze out of the LFP architecture over the next 1,5,10 years.
Second that etank, had a wedge put away for the new ISA, have diverted my investment elsewhere now.
BOD silent, social media accounts spamming for apparent for sale posts, it's starting to all appear a bit desperate from where i'm standing. I've had the feeling that there's either discussions ongoing these past months, or they've been caught short, as days go by the latter is seeming the more logical.
If the next news we hear is the accounts, that'll be me either cutting my holding down 50%-75%, or simply just selling out completely.
My average is 1.8p Berty, if that is what you call underwater then we share wildly different opinions on being underwater.
Why on earth would anybody "choose to listen" to you? Your post history shows you ramping this stock to high-heaven this month, then "de-ramping" it in the opposite direction in the same month, offering nothing of any real substance as to an explanation to back up your vague, ominous statements. If you have that, i'm all ears.
I did write to AMC saying that my company would host their website, matching their current cost or at a reduced cost compared to their current provider - a 5$/$10 a month server would be able to handle their website, loading as fast as it was previously, boggles the mind...
That is the typical role performed by one with the title of president Sparticus.
A director is not just a job title, it bears it's own legal responsibilities, in the UK this is set by companies house, here's a good link from companies house, of course this is for the UK: https://companieshouse.blog.gov.uk/2019/02/21/7-duties-of-a-company-director/
If you fail to act in the best interests of the company as a director, the consequences can be severe, for example creditors and/or shareholders have the right to pursue a director on a PERSONAL level, if their actions were in breach of their responsibilities (set by companies house), and said actions caused a given creditor/shareholder to suffer a financial loss. So that limited liability is only valid IF you uphold your responsibilities as a director.
Good reference on breach of directors responsibilities:
https://www.begbies-traynorgroup.com/articles/director-advice/what-are-directors-duties-and-consequences-of-breach
Now 'President' on the other hand, in a legal context the title alone means nothing, in that context it is no different than a job role such as "Janitor", "Software developer", "Engineer', "Chief banana". If you are "President" and not a director, then you are not a legal spokesperson for the company, hence you cannot sign on behalf of the company for various items, e.g. company accounts - in this case you are only responsible for what is defined within your employment contract (in whatever form that comes in), if you do not fulfil your duties then creditors, shareholders etc cannot pursue you, now i'm unsure if that still applies if you break the law, anyway I hope that makes sense!
I'm no lawyer but the way I have always looked upon it is that in a legal context a company functions much the same a person, however of course in reality a company is not a human being, a director's role is to be a spokesperson for the company, and their actions at all times must be in the best interests of company they are a director of, these rules are to ensure there is at leasts one human being who is liable for the company's actions.
Simply put, one certainly can be President and not be a director, President in that case has no "special meaning", unlike director.
Would I invest today? My honest answer to that is I would definitely be keen to invest, however if we’re talking today then I would buy approximately 1/4 to 1/5 of the shares I currently hold.
The reason for that is solely down to my uncertainty with the extension of the TEO, specifically how that is going to affect Amur’s license. That is the one thing that is looming in the back of my mind with AMC right now.
For the record - I invested in AMC in September 2018, and have held my shares since, topped up small bits throughout.
The Adam Habib “situation” is not something that instills confidence in AMC for me, but that in and of itself is not something that’d put me off this investment - very much a moderate risk / moderate reward investment from my perspective.
I do have an issue with the communication of late, it is poor to say the least, although from what I observed before investing, I don’t think AMC have ever been good on that front - so I entered this investment back then with this already jotted down as a risk.
Price estimation, I won’t name a price as there are simply too many (unknown to me) variables for me to put my name down to a figure. What I will say is that I am expecting a GOOD return with my average of ~1.8p, but would not be surprised if I lost most of it.
All IMO, I am no expert in the mining industry. That is an honest response to your questions.
It’s quite literally in the name “board of directors”.
Re-reading my post earlier, it’s quite verbose and has some mistakes - here’s a more concise version
All directors are on the BOD by definition (board of Directors), not all president’s are directors, period.
Yes it’s unusual and to source an example is something I don’t have time to do - a president that is not a director is an employee, finding a director is easy enough, they will be in a directory, such as companies house, etc - finding employees and their titles is not such an easy task so I don’t have time for that unfortunately.
You can bet your bottom dollar there are numerous companies with this setup though.
The first company I setup was a software company, I held the title of director, AND “Computer psychiatrist“, both titles are displayed on companies house. My first point there is that aside from the job title of Director, anything else is fair game and means nothing in a legal sense (in the context of this discussion).
My second point is that an unconventional job title means nothing, that business was profitable throughout its lifespan of 5 years, we dealt with the ministry of defence (MOD) via public tender numerous times, and shut down in a sensible fashion, no debt, all good, final dividend (I started a new software business straight after). Whilst that is not apples for apples, as the examples there are private limited companies, the point is the same - outside of director, a job title should not be taken so seriously IMO.
Cherokee, the Board Of Directors (BOD) is the set of individuals that are directors of the company, Adam is no longer a director so he is not a member of the BOD. His president job title of President is typically held by someone on the BOD, however that does not have to be the case, thus all directors are on the BOD by definition, a president isn't included in that set by definition.
It is unusual for a president not to be a director, given that he was seemingly unexpectedly voted out of being retained as a director, I don't think it's confusing, just a little non-traditional shall we say.
This looks to have been changed today. I actually looked at the website at around 11am to check for an update, there wasn’t one - I even then messaged another holder on the telegram group saying that the website hadn’t been updated.. then an hour later another poster reported it got updated - I checked with a cleaned cache at 11am so I am fairly certain this happened late this morning / early this afternoon.
I second that everything seems to be taking a lot longer these days for accountancy & legal advise, and probably many other services, that will of course depend on the supplier. My business has had a bad experience with this due to the pandemic, accountants & solicitor turnaround times have certainly increased, i've had to chase my accountant & solicitor firm multiple times during this past 6-9 months, whereas that was the exception beforehand, not the rule as it seems to be of late.