Member Info for Fukurokuju79

And hopefully a better future for ARC Minerals share holders too 😀

Last known they were in the lab and I believe we're delayed due to an existing backlog, exacerbated by further issues in the region. After assays they were going to Dr Mumin to review with the idea of hopefully being able to 'upgrade confidence in this exploration model and refine our exploration plan.'

No idea where they are now in the above process .

I'm personally working on the basis we won't hear the results yet (unless major and considered material news), and that we're more likely they will go to Dr Mumin. Once Dr Mumin has assessed in context of his theory/model for the area is when I'm anticipating a broader update to the market on the so what of the drilling and additional third party holes logged.

So expecting news but after it's been contextualised and more based around what it means for the model / theory than what's in these holes as such.

Just my expectations and reasons.

Atb

Also, apologies to other who have to read it and for taking over the board with not a particularly value adding discussion.

I'll leave you all to it.

P.s. not sulking, just actively not participating until something meaningful happens. 😉

Atb

I see it as another example of you minimising others. I'm not saying it's conscious, but you do do it.

You've minimised your apology by adding the third sentence. 'You will probably consider me saying that to you rude too?'

Then you minimise me with the last sentence. 'Sometimes you just can’t win with some people.'

I accept you may not have meant things a certain way.

Anyway, Ill leave it there and move on.

Atb

See it as you will.

Atb

FKC,

I'm not aggressive or confrontational. I am allowed to defend and be defensive though. We are all human.

I'll add to my notes how I must not make my posts 'long winded' as to fit the mould you want of me. I write how I write.

You've been rude towards me for some time Fiaz. Should I accept your attempts to minimise and criticise my views as they don't match your own?

You've said no end of rude remarks about me, and if you look at our posts again today I've been factual and you've again used derogatory remarks about the nature of my posts and how I've sulked off etc.

Frankly, I've tolerated it too long. I shouldn't have to. You are unable to accept your part and have not once had an attempt at humility about it. You are seemingly never in the wrong and I'm almost certain people in the real world will have observed this about you throughout time.

I've clearly made my point about your statement being incorrect.

Please grow up and stop it with the stupid insults!

Atb

It's fair to say that most PIs didn't vote, as is the way, and is evidenced by the total eligible votes Vs the total votes made .

However as you say no one knows who voted, who didn't, how they voted or how they didn't. Whether inside, outside, independent or not independent.

Ultimately it went through and that's all thats to it. I just don't like the way I'm called out for saying things that align to the company and others basically say whatever they like that suits their view, even when they can't be substanted and what can substantiated doesn't support it.

Its gone through that's it in my mind. However some posters here will use the fact it's gone through to basically say that it was forced on us, or it was a plan to take control and they are in collaboration against PIs etc.

I'm all for the right of free speech but the spin doctoring here is ridiculous. If people really truly felt it's a massive con job sell up surely.

The truth is everyone had a right to vote. If they didn't vote that's on them. It got passed within the frameworks of the stock market process.

You just can't say most investors voted against when it passed lol

Nearly spat my coffee out when you said you don't generalise. No. That's right. Course not.

You just position your generalisations as fact and loose interpretations to suit your point.

Seems black and white to me

2 of 2

So to me the data implies...

a) Even when I'm going along with your view of what is independent, there was a larger number of 'independent shareholder' votes cast for the deal compared to the total of those who voted against it.

b) Most PIs didn't vote.

They are not represented in the for or against. The implication is they didn't have a strong enough view to vote for or against, or the inclination to vote because they never do.

Either way these can't be ignored from consideration in your analysis and certainly doesn't support your statement that.... 'the ‘independent shareholder’s’ seem to have voted against by a majority'.

In reality the independent shareholders seem to have not cared to vote by a very vast majority (which tbh is common) and then those that did voted for it as a majority.

1 of 2

FKC

First off I'll let you be very loose with your use of the definition of 'independent shareholders'. In reality you're way off the mark but I dont want to detract from the main point by opening that debate for now.

Solai pension holding are for all intents and purposes, PB. Solai pension holding being the ultimate beneficial owner and Purebond limited being the name of controlled undertaking. Solai actually only hold 1 million shares on top of the Purebond holding.

For context..

The total share count considered within the AGM on 8th was 705,569,314.

Of which the share count for the stage 1 resolution was:

- 281,880,160 voted for (84-85% of total votes cast)

- 50,852,300 voted against (15-16% of total votes cast)

In regards to the context on insider or 'independent shareholder' positions...

- The last annual accounts show around 48 million shares held by directors

(Ben, Hillary, David, Brett, Mike).

- PWB is not included in the annual accounts and I can only see PWB owning 2 million shares. I've included those.

These are the only real cohort who I wouldn't call 'independent shareholders'.

So that's about 50 million of shares based on the above.

I can accept for the purposes of the financing votes that purebond aren't independent. Albeit they are an independent shareholder I'll happily include their 85 million.

A fair bit more dubious is considering POW an 'insider'. They are independent as a shareholder with a right to vote.

The last data on them is that they held circa 69.5 million shares.

So that's:

- 50 million by BoD and PWB

- 85 million PB

- 69.5 million shares held by POW

That would mean a total of 204.5 million shares at a questionable max and I could arguably reduce that by taking out POW but I won't.

The vote for the resolution(s) was supported by 282 million shares so that means even if I use your own view of independent (204.5million) that the remainder circa 77.5 million votes for the resolutions were cast by 'independent shareholders'..

That's seems vast when compared to only 50 million shares voted against.

Especially when you then consider the hundreds of millions of shares within the share count of 705 million that didn't cast a vote at all. Which is also very much built up of 'independent shareholders' such as those in ISA, taxed, pension products via nominees on the register like (JIM, II, Hargreaves etc).

You can't simply put anyone you fancy into a category of not being independent. You know that. They all have a vote to cast.

Just because they are in institution or company doesn't make their vote any less valid. But I'll largely go with your view just for ease of avoiding any detracting argument.

FKC

No I haven't 'sulked off' but thanks for showing your maturity.

You see, this is the trouble with posters like yourself is that you make statements and can't back them up. Then call out anyone who actually does research a 'parrot' or someone who is a mouth piece or someone who tows the company line. Just because they don't agree with you.

You have your own view and you're consumed with it even when it's wrong. Your outlook and research is already programmed by your own believe and thinking. Are you as able to be self critical of your own view?

If you are going to call me out in the way you do, then at least support your own 'independent' statements with some analysis.

I put a lot of effort into my own research in order to form my own independent opinion(s). Hopefully the opinions I form are indeed more often aligned to the company I'm invested in, otherwise I would re evaluate my investment. Sometimes they don't align in which case I assess how detrimental to my investment those differences are.

I respect others have different conclusions to me but if I'm going to get called out as something I'd like to think those who are doing the calling are actually putting as much effort into forming their own opinions and statements that they share.

I think you may need too re run the numbers but please let me know what you come up with. I'll happily stand to be corrected

I'll help with sharing my numbers...

Atb

Lse didn't post my entire message. Attempt 2.

FKC

You said >>...'Again F79 you miss the bigger picture and just parrot 🦜 the company line. The vote was not a great success for the company. Phase 1 funding was expected to go through easily considering the number of votes held by the insiders. The ‘independent shareholder’s’ seem to have voted against by a majority....

I'd love for you to share your analysis that supports the statement that 'The ‘independent shareholder’s’ seem to have voted against by a majority'.

Atb

FKC

You said >>...'Again F79 you miss the bigger picture and just parrot 🦜 the company line. The vote was not a great success for the company. Phase 1 funding was expected to go through easily considering the number of votes held by the insiders. The ‘independent shareholder’s’ seem to have voted against by a majority.

Not at all Devil.

I've been respectful on this board over a very long period of time. By the way I didn't call anyone a sess pit on an individual level, I said this board has become one. As in it's toxic.

I've been part of this board too, which is why it's just not worth it.

I'm not crying like a baby, how childish. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

I've consistently said how others are entitled to their own opinion and tried to offer my own.

It is seemly pointless trying to share and have an open balanced discussion on this page anymore. Ive tried and now I see it's just not worth the effort. Simple as that.

Just because I offer a less one sided view my opinions are minimised. The only engagement of late is people hurling accusations and derogatory comments about not having my own opinion, towing the line, being a mouth piece for Ben Turney and even better I am Ben Turney as I was apparently born in the same year. Simply because those that now post here have driven away all the decent informative posters that offered balance.

It's become an echo chamber. No one openly discusses anything constructively because as soon as I or anyone else offers a different perspective the above happens.

It's all yours.

Atb

I'm chilled Devilbaby.

Anyway, I'll leave all to it. Not worth the abuse as I'm clearly in the minority on this board with previously decent posters now not bothering. This sess pit is all yours to moan freely... please continue your echo chamber.

You've a really bad investment in KAV so you better sit on a BB and moan about it rather than sell and move on. Makes loads of sense to me.

Atb

Not at all FKC.

I have an opinion. It's not the same as yours but it's certainly not a parrot towing the line .

You're argumentative by nature is my perception. You probably like playing devil's advocate with anyone and can't accept others opinions. So you try to belittle them, or come up with more diversionary questions. You lack balanced critical thinking.

You say I've missed the bigger picture I don't think so. You say won't PB vote in their best interests, but how are there interests different to yours as shareholders?

You say wouldn't it have been better for part funding to be raised before drill being completed, rather than all at once. Yet you fail to see thats exactly what's on offer with the 2 stages of voting.

You can't accept I have a different view to you, so you minimise it by saying I'm a parrot and towing the company line etc.

You have no meaningful argument against the points I make. You just parrot your own line. It seems the majority of shareholders who voted against you have also missed the bigger picture.

You have so little confidence in your own judgement that you continue to remain invested despite the fact you have no faith in the management, no faith in key players on the BOD, no faith in their strategies, no faith in their financial management, no faith in the upcoming potential acquisitions, no faith in the soon to be largest shareholder. If you had any gumption and belief on your own line you'd simply sell and move on to another investment yet I suspect you'd find something to moan about there too.

Look inwards not outwards.

You'll never be wrong. It's a pointless debate but as long as you remain invested here but just continue to moan says it all.

Exactly. Clearly their is the point that as much as they don't want control, they'll effectively have a controlling / significantly influential stake.

At times this may not fully align with my views, and that may be a source of frustration but at least at a fundamental level they'll be voting with broad alignment of any investor. To make a return through an increasing shareprice.

I'd expect if anything the management and BOD have much less security and will need to ensure they deliver more with PB in the picture, than without them.

I can't be bothered to join telegram, although I can see it would probably be worthwhile.

I not sure how that's relevant to my point about you having gone from trying to vote PWB off the board at the AGM resolutions, to now feeling reassured because you now actually believe PWB is the person in charge.

I'm just saying that's quite the about turn. Albeit one you're entitled to make.

Other than attempting to be a diversionary question, I don't see how your question is relevant to my observation.

Let's face it their was a concerted effort to stop stage 1 of the PB deal ahead of the vote today and it was passed with a significant % anyway.

However, I'll answer you question. Regarding if I think they (PB) will vote on what's in their best interest then yes of course, they almost certainly will.

I'd have thought though that if anything you'd have seen this as a good thing. Given you clearly don't like Ben or PWB (or maybe you do now) as you want them out (or maybe you don't now).

I'm assuming as an investor in KAV you want a return on your investment, your goal here is to make money. Its not a wild jump to assume PB are also invested in KAV to make money, as an investor.

So surely given the evidence today that you're unlikely to stop things you don't like anyway, then is it not the case that PB are therefore more likely to have some influence over the things that are important to all shareholders. Sharing a common interest. In effect the ability to remove management they deem to be ineffective, or stop proposed changes in renumeration etc and also vote for resolutions that ultimately are in their best interest i.e. to make a return on their investment via an improving share price?

Atb