Member Info for Fr.Jack.Hackett

Mr Redacted,

I know some companies need to achieve a share price above a certain threshold to maintain position in a particular exchange or index. Others want to have more shares to allow liquidity.

All that aside, whenever I think about share consolidation - I always think of Aston Martin Lagonda - AML : they appear to have a share consolidation every 5 years of the order 1 for 20 yet within a few years the SP is bottoming out near the original level before consolidation.

It is normal for prices to drop to the subscription price before any future rise - similar statement made on GRL (Ref post: 21 Aug 2024 14:48 on GRL).

If correct - this can be bought cheaper later.

As expected - price drops to the subscription price - as often they do and many predict (Ref post: 21 Aug 2024 14:48).

Still think the CEO is well out of depth if share price recuperation is anything to go by.

SP in cents not pence !!

Reviewing the recent RNSs and some of the share options listed I suggest the goalposts are not that challenging:

Management options goal: AISC of $1500: price of gold a few years ago was less than this. If they have been planning this mine for 3 or 4 years then based on $1500 AISC it would have been loss-making even during Feasibility!!

Management options goal: 650oz/month also appears very low (but still welcome for share price escalation)!!

Planned Production goal: 1000ozpcm by end Jan 2025 - a few years ago it was 50koz/year then 25koz so again the challenge set appears very low compared to original goals.

Based on the above - assuming these figure from the COMPANY have REAL VALUE (not like the last few years figures) then I get the following (based on gold at $2500oz, 30% divs from profits & MCAP 15x Divs):

Production 7800oz/year, Revenue $19.5m, Profit $7.8m, Divs $2.34m, MCAP $35m (SP = 5p)

Production 12000oz/year, Revenue $30m, Profit $12m, Divs $3.6m, MCAP $54m (SP = 7.6p)

- on bit larger established companies maybe consider use MCAP 20xDivs.

I know none of this balances the 14p SP of a few years ago, but if the BOD information in the RNS is achievable then the numbers look to add up against current SP.

- it is that issue - the data in the RNS that, in the past has allowed this to become nearly junk.

- the above is the most simple calc - until the company provides actual data showing progress to the production and AISC no point in putting further effort in.

Mr Corrumpo,

It maybe - if the spread is low - some of the buys recorded maybe sells in reality (I think its how LSE work). It is difficult to identify and some have access to the higher data that would confirm the correct transaction.

Mr Kammy,

If I am correct, you stated, ". . . I expect a sale around £300m. . ".

I assume this is a sale for all the assets.

Taking this value (and assuming some leader in Russia does not pillage the pot), then additionally assume 20% to pay off the organisations allegedly assisting on this 1/2 decade sales process then that leaves £240m.

Assume this is fully represented in the share price would leave a stock price of approx 8.4p which is over a 350% gain.

AND I understand Mr Makeabundle apparently disagrees with something in your logic - however I do not see any evidence to counteract your logic presented (at least on this tread).

I am sure if Mr Makeabundle is correct - he/she will definitely live up to their name.

Mr Hydro,

after 4 or 5 years :

". . . We are waiting for an offer to be agreed. . . "

or is it

". . . We are waiting for an offer . . . "

I don't think the COMPANY has ever said there was an offer (let alone to be agreed).

And I suggest, since 2022 the situation has changed slightly !

Wasarunner,

It's the current liabilities - worth about 5000 or 6000 oz gold.

- if the plan to hit 1000oz in 6months - then this could be handled within 12 months. If all this is pipe dream - then obviously not a happy new year.

It would be reassuring for the CEO to issue production figures per month for next few months to show progress at least to the 650oz/month - to give faith.

This company needs to win back the support from the type of investors it probably lost over the last 3 years and I would say month-on-month improvement to production is the way to go (not quarterly).

Suspect price will drop towards the subscription price (most do) - unless there is an RNS about actual production values.

less than 5 months to achieve the 1000oz/month (January 2025)

I don't normally consider monitoring daily ups and downs in SP for any share - however I do find changes in the order of 10% in GRL and CMCL are normally based on something tangible at the mine site.

I suspect issues like:

- the 50-tonne excavator has blown a gasket !!

- rain stops play !!

Eyes on the ground would really help just to observe: how often is the gold room used? has it been raining lots ? Are excavators all in operation? Is electricity supply been good ? has there been lost time incident ?

I guess some can wangle a profit on buying & selling just by monitoring weather forecast in some of the southern African mining companies!!

Maybe something good in the pipeline - based on todays trades

Mr GoldGeezer,

I would like them to clearly define their objective. I probably am (and I like to think I am) reading the last update as playing with words - but maybe others here may also agree with me:

On 8-July GRL stated ". . targeting gold-production of 1,000oz pcm within six months. . .", a very clear defined objective.

On 6-August GRL state " objective to deliver the planned 50,000 tonnes of stacked and agglomerated ore within six months, to support gold production targets of 1,000oz pcm".

I now read the latest as 50,000 tonnes of stack is their objective.

It is the wording changes that disappoint me with this company. They have a history of changing these objectives. To me - they are already informing that it is likely the 1000ozpcm is more than they can chew (at least at the moment) and it is the ore stacked that they are wanting praise for.

As long as they achieve the 650ozpcm they are all happy.

From experience, its never going well when you gotta report you are working

". . . in good faith. . . ".

Words from last RNS:

". . . targeting gold-production of 1,000oz pcm within six months. . . "

My preference would be that the above should be at least achieved and preferably exceeded (at least over a 3 month period) before any incentive is considered.

They were targeting 50koz/year 4 years ago !!

Lets award them if they can at least achieve what they are EMPLOYED to do.

I did ask on this thread when a buying company would expect to see any positive return on investment capital if purchase the mining rights for the complete EUA for approx 40p a share.

Investment capital includes the mining rights plus the infrastructure investment.

Everyday that goes by - I see this break-even date moving out by 2-days.

Unless others provide quantifiable arguments to the contrary, unfortunately I have the following opinions :

The days of high palladium price is well past - and few will invest in new fields (when plenty operational fields are available).

Low grade nickel/copper mining is probably difficult to justify the capital outlay (for infrastructure alone).

Mr Makeabundle,

You have opinions for sales price of 100p is being discussed and opinion it is not 40p.

I just wonder the basis of your opinions and if you like to elaborate further (understand if you rather not).

Just for information, a 100p/share purchase for the licences would be approx $2.8 billon, a 40p/share would be $1.12 billon to buy the licences alone.

With the knowledge a 130koz/year facility cost approx $176million and a 1000koz/year facility is estimated at approx $1 billion, and with probably 5-year building programs to generate revenue, can you suggest when you think there will be a positive return on investment for the 'successful' bidder (even within a 2 year time period would be good).

To make things easier, why not use a purchase share price of 40p rather than the more expensive 100p.

Thank you

"I only have one question for the AGM"

Well I have one or two -and more - some based on SPAngel (John Meyer) freely quoted information!

1) Why do shareholders hear about the (possible) biggest revenue income for the company in the last few years (revenue from the sale of 1/2 of the stockpile of ore sold locally) through an obscure website operated by a Mr Waite?

2) Why do shareholders hear that some due-diligence was conducted and then dropped by some SA platinum company through Mr Waite website?

3) Does the BofD have any intention of updating shareholders punctually with relevant price sensitive information in accordance with LSE/AIM requirements or have EUA adapted to the environment it is operating from to be a pariah entity no longer adhering to such rules and regulations .

I do acknowledged that the words he (JM) used does not specifically state when due-diligence was taking place (2019 2020 2021 2022 - who knows) - or when the company pulled out.

I also note that JM was VERY specific to say the monies received can be used in Russia (indirectly indicates to some that he may be aware of issues concerning transferring money out of that lovely country).

He was also very specific that the company can sell into the LOCAL market (good they can sell at all) - but only local (which he does state is normal).

The best line (not mine - his): ". . . the fact they are able to do anything in Russia right now is is is reasonable news. . . ".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCXZqBK8rTM

Posted earlier that if you look at the main page for EUA - the small graph for EUA over the last 3 months looks like a cardiograph scan !!

That post has been removed - for obvious reasons.

Mr Kammy18,

Please don't ask if I have or ever had a stake here - as the next question will be how big.

I know many do like this discussion.

Before I leave for the day - it would have been nice today for DimitryReacts to supply some info from me earlier post concerning his/her's ". . after doing research.. . ". I may have missed it.

All the "research" I do I post here.