Member Info for Happyhaddock

@carpfisher -

Statistically the most likely outcome on the day I first bought in to UFO back in early 2020 was that things would go tits up eventually, that hasn't changed. Similarly when you buy a lottery ticket the odds are that you will lose your money but a little speculative flutter never hurt anybody so long as you remain aware that is what you are doing and don't risk money you can't afford to lose.

Selling up now would be like buying a lottery ticket and binning it before the prize draw was made. I don't expect to win but nor will I lose much if things don't go my way. I have savings and investments to protect my wealth and UFO is neither a suitable place for saving nor investing.

I think a large part of the problem is perhaps that the pandemic drew a lot of people in to the junior exploration sector who were not familiar with it but got caught up in the hype.

From one perspective it is easy to ask why we aren't already up and running, but if you look at the timescales, losses and delays for even those companies that do make it we aren't in unfamiliar territory, this is just how things typically plod along in this sector.

Might things go tits up? ... statistically it is the most likely outcome

Might things still come good? .. still possible as some projects get delayed by decades before succeeding, just put things in the bottom draw, wait and see what happens. If you've put in more cash then you can afford to lose or leave doing nothing for ages then learn from the mistake.

In light of the recently deleted thread and its hostile conflicts, I'll repeat something I first posted a couple of years ago.

I've long been sceptical about claims of "bullish rampers" driving up share prices, or of "de-ramping trolls" driving them down. Nevertheless when prices don't behave as expected, some will throw accusations at others before admitting their own expectations were unrealistic. So let us look at a few facts.

It seems logical to assume that those who hold shares in a company will think more favourably about its prospects than those who chose not to. Statistics show that active traders typically underperform passive market trackers, and that roughly three quarters lose money trading on line. A related statistic shows that with the growth of on-line share dealing, the average time an equity is held as an "investment" steadily fell from over a decade to just a few months.

The narratives of LSE bulletin boards tend to be dominated by a minority of a company's most opinionated shareholders who constantly post about their hopes to the upside whilst fiercely contesting any talk of risk and uncertainty. Yet if prices actually adhered to their endless narratives predicting imminent growth, how do so many lose money?

Based upon the numbers who do post on this board, we presumably have a far greater quantity of silent shareholders who don't. Our share price moves up or down with minimal correlation to the often polarised comments written here. This suggests that this bulletin board has little influence on that silent majority's beliefs or actions; that most either don't read it or that they give little credibility to strangers on the internet.

Our management continue to strive to make progress in a volatile sector noted for delays, losses and failures; one where fickle investor sentiment is influenced by broader macro-economic factors beyond our control. I remain a patient long term share holder here, but the above gives no clues about how our share price may behave over the coming weeks or months.

So does any of the above matter? No single investor can move a share's price but we can ground our own expectations in knowledge of how the sector typically behaves rather than the opinions of strangers. If a speculative share holding outperforms your expectations you should have no complaints. If it repeatedly fails to meet your expectations at what point do you question if your own expectations have been realistic? Or at least ask yourself if you have allowed enough time to fulfil a realistic expectation?

I don't dispute that there may be one or two who naively think that those who dominate the narrative with their barrage of propaganda do actually move a share's price up or down. However, if there are complaints, I'd suggest they mostly relate to prices not moving to meet the wild short term forecasts some make here, not complaints that prices do move to meet them.

I'd just like to repost something that remains as relevant today as when I first wrote it in 2022.

As I've said before, I joined LSE after the exploration sector's wild spike in 2020 driven by my academic interest in observing the reason resistant beliefs that had driven such behaviour. Inter-net groups inevitably generate much petty squabbling between those with extreme views, from the seemingly paranoid believing that even inconsequential comments are deliberate lies intended to further some nefarious goal, to the over-excitable who seem to fervently believe even their own polemic propaganda. Milder forms of delusional herd mentality can also show up in the insecurities of those seeking communal affirmation of their current views over impartial discussion of all uncertainties and possible outcomes.

I have seen no evidence to suggest that the dominant opinions voiced on LSE are representative of the beliefs or actions of the silent majority who actually move share prices, yet I still believe that Alien's long term potential makes a small punt worth the speculative risks. However, as what I believe is irrelevant to the markets, as best as I am able, I try to calmly acknowledge all future unknowns including possibilities that contradict my own hopes and timescales for UFO. Other than being interesting to observe, I'll say no more about some people's overly emotional behaviour beyond the fact that the junior exploration sector seems a curious place to speculate for impatient people who are fearful of uncertainty and doubt.

I'd previously expressed the hope that excitable anticipation might have allowed UFO to recapture some of 2020's crazy price spike by autumn 2021. However, I'd also said that if news flow didn't satisfy expectations then our share price would be falling by that Christmas setting up a prolonged period of price stagnation. I've often stated that it was unlikely that we would see any revenue from Hanc*ck before 2024 and that my first date for reviewing UFO's performance was/is 2025. I've also stated that I don't expect my own predictions to be any more reliable than other people's which is why I don't try to trade the volatility or time the market.

Whilst I am a little disappointed, I am not surprised that we are still shedding 2020's gains. Only as the euphoria dies down do people seem to be waking up to how risky and slow moving this sector is, along with how few junior explorers actually succeed. However, it is not without precedent for emotional speculators to only get excited and rush to invest after something has become over-valued, or to not sell up until a disillusioned market has left a company undervalued.

I continue to hold the position I built before 2020's price spike, and I remain pragmatically hopeful about the long term potential of our non ferrous metals. However, for the time being I'll continue to keep my shares in the bottom drawer neither selling nor adding to my position.

Given the current discussion I'd like to re-post some data culled from various reports in 2023.

The earth is said to have formed containing about sixteen times more silver than gold. Most of the gold ever mined is still held as wealth in the form of jewellery or bullion. Conversely ever more silver is consumed by industry, with recycling not very economic at current prices.

Silver is currently mined at a little below a ten to one ratio with gold, that is to say less than ten ounces of new silver come out of the ground for every new ounce of gold. Surprisingly many consider this fact more important than relative production costs when debating what constitutes a "fair" gold to silver price ratio. So for reference, primary gold miner's average all-in-sustaining-costs in 2023 are about $1350/oz of gold, whilst the average AISC of primary silver miners is around $13/oz of silver. However, huge pre-existing inventories buffer the pricing dynamics of gold supply, and silver is largely priced as a by-product of mining other metals where even primary silver mines produce much more than just silver. Without "credits" from other metals, primary silver miner's average AISC in 2023 are estimated to be around $38/oz of silver.

Roughly 6billion ounces of gold have been mined throughout history with about 3billion ounces still stored as "good delivery" ingots in bullion vaults around the world. This massively dwarfs production of about 120million new ounces of gold per year with investment demand for physical gold around 150million ounces per year.

In comparison it is estimated that of the roughly 45billion ounces of silver historically mined, only about 2billion ounces are still in bullion vaults as "good delivery" ingots. In 2022 about 200million ounces of new silver was produced by primary silver mines, almost 650milllion more ounces as by-product from other mines and over 150million ounces was recovered from recycling. Monetary purchases currently make up over a quarter of the roughly 1200million ounce total annual silver demand meaning that freshly refined silver coming to market currently exceeds all industrial needs. Current silver "deficits" can therefore be addressed by simply establishing a price that encourages a change of name tag on ingots already stored in vaults. However, annual mine production has been falling whilst industrial silver consumption is forecast to keep growing, which may eventually start to drain vaults.

Put another way, at 2023 prices, 3billion ounces of gold is worth around $6000bn, 2billion ounces of silver is worth almost $50bn, yet the global savings and investment market is worth hundreds of trillions of dollars. If only a little of the cash currently invested in gold moved to a speculative play on silver, the whole silver market would be swamped. Similarly if even a tiny fraction of mainstream savings moved in to precious metals, the whole bullion market could be swamped.

@5x5 - I applaud your effort to try and steer this bulletin board away from its usual childish bickering, name calling and petty one-upmanship.

Alas your attempt to introduce a new topic of conversation appears to have been a futile waste of time.

Whilst I am sure many know this, for the sake of clarity the 75million in tax loses under discussion are Aus dollars, not pound sterling or US dollars.

Hence at current exchange rates that is just under £40m where who know what percentage of that another company might be willing to pay? My guess is that anything over £10m would be a great deal, but as has been said that would still be well over our current mkt.cap.

Obviously a huge amount of excitement in this interview balanced by a willingness to stress this is early days and they've got to figure out how best to proceed from here and what their next steps are having only just received this report and test results.

I suspect, but hope to be proved wrong, that mention of having an operation up and running in 2025 may turn out to be a bit of premature over excitement, but it is looking as if there may be the potential to set up a simple operation that is within the financial reach of a tiny junior like ECR.

There is much about the future of this news to look forward to, and definitely one of ECR's better days.

Well that interview was undoubtedly an excellent piece of PR, of course we all want and hope that it turns out to be much more than just PR and that all the wonderful things spoken about do actually translate in to reality.

I'm content to keep waiting but I know a lot are losing faith in all the things our management say and want to see action now rather than more talk.

Market makers just doing their thing, ie moving the price up and down enough to encourage folk to buy and sell so as to make a market.... as we all know they make their money on volume of sales, not on the price at which the trades take place.

... as for writing these off in your head, I've said several times before that when ever I speculate in a small junior explorer the first thing I do on the day I buy the shares is immediately dismiss them as a 100% loss as that is always the most likely outcome. I then just wait patiently for years, after which most do reach a zero valuation but if lucky every now and then one company may just surprise you enough to make all the risks and losses worth while.

Well I suppose much depends upon your willingness to trust what the BOD have to say ...

If you are permanently upbeat about UFO then there are positives that can be inferred from that RNS, if you are of a mind to assume the BOD are all talk and don't ever deliver on what they say then there are a lot of negatives that can be inferred from that RNS.

Sadly like so many before them this RNS from UFO is sadly lacking in any real "meat on the bone" by way of definite facts and information we can dig in to and analyse. Consequently we are left to infer what we will without really knowing if we are right or wrong.

However if you are of a mind to take a speculative punt on any junior explorer the time to do so is when it is hated and the share price is in the gutter.

I've previously posted this across various junior explorers where even if appearing pessimistic or condescending, the warning to ignore the noise and do your own research warrants periodic repetition.

I'm always amazed at the importance folk on bulletin boards place upon their own opinions, valuations and time frames. It is as if they don't realise that markets are moved by what the silent majority feel probable, not what a few vocal strangers on the inter-net hope is possible.

Unless companies are generating revenue their routine need to raise more funds should lead everyone to expect delays, debt and dilution as physical exploration and administrative paper-work both progress more slowly than most here can tolerate. Junior exploration companies can't announce new deals or great drill results every day simply because nervous folk worried about the share price want reassurance that they've backed one of the rare exceptions that will go on to make a loss making sector seem appealing.

In the insular world of LSE bulletin boards some dedicate much of every day to cheering on speculative equity purchases like punters at the horse racing, or to jeering at those with contrasting opinions as if they were pantomime villains. This questionable use of time has no influence over, and tells us little about how, the wider markets that move share prices behave. Nor does it allow for LSE contributors who directly compare share prices without appreciating the principle of market capitalisation, or who excitably champion extreme valuations which, regardless of questionable assumptions, include obvious mathematical errors or no justification at all.

Insults and paranoid bickering about motive, honesty and understanding won't alter a lack of facts about which, if any, theory on future unknowns will eventually become reality. Nor does it move things along more quickly or increase the odds of a particular hope or fear being realised. Nevertheless, some here do seem to think that others should share their conviction in extreme and subjective opinions that cannot be objectively confirmed. Hence, unrealistic expectation seems the most likely reason a company does not live up to a bulletin board's hopes and predictions.

The success and valuations of junior explorers often depends upon future unknowns which are largely out of their own control. If folk here associate uncertainty and doubt with fear, then they should question if their temperament is suited to such a risky sector of the market or if they have speculated with more money than they can afford to lose? Much of what impatient folk here focus their emotional energy on arguing about each day is, at best, peripheral short term noise of greater relevance to people's egos and self-esteem than the company's prospects or progress. Yet only the passage of time will show who accurately forecast the timescales, risks and potential rewards of a particular project.

CAVEAT EMPTOR!

@Chris - many here may suspect that, but I have a hard time believing anybody from the company would ever formally and publicly acknowledge that R.S. is "the problem" as they would then have to do something about it.

If you are correct it may take a much more influential individual or business partner to redress any internal power balance, and if R.S. is the problem, would he want to let a greater power in to the fold?

Plus there is also the issue of any performance uplift payment we may (or may not) owe Windfield. I've suggested before that whilst we may "know" nothing for certain, it has long been at the back of my mind that this may be part of the problem with retaining management. Who would want to stick around for years if the only effective way to deal with a prohibitively large payment is to keep excusing delays until the performance uplift period expires.

All wild speculation of course but that's what people do in the absence of meaningful communication and confirmed facts from management.

I like to periodically trawl through records and filings at Companies House for the businesses I'm "invested" in and have just been looking through old records for Alien.

It's been a long while since the subject of our vacant CEO chair was mentioned here or, more generally our inability to retain senior staff, where of late our boardroom has been somewhat akin to a game of musical chairs at a children's party.

Records for Alien suggest we've had 21 resignations of senior staff reportable to Companies House ... had we been a large company with a long history that wouldn't be a lot, but 17 of those have been in the last six years and we are a tiny company. This amounts to almost three resignations a year when we don't have many more senior positions than that.

I do suspect that if we can't bring get Hanc*ck over the line soon that UFO will have to address the elephant in the room and explain to the markets why we can't recruit or retain staff capable of "getting the job done" and what it is that is behind this issue.

"We must all be in agreement that this wasn't a good investment?"

I think the point is it was never any kind of investment, good, bad or otherwise... Small junior explorers are purely speculative punts for small change you can afford to lose, not investments.

We may perhaps agree on the fact we all hoped this would come good, the question is how many "went big" because they expected it? UFO isn't consigned to history's dustbin just yet, and may still come good, but I think a lot of folk are realising the risks they took when speculating in small junior explorers only after they have lost money rather than before.

@Chris - don't think of it as games and dishonesty - management always overestimate how quickly they can wrap up deals - All sorts of explorers make these sorts of statements and and then endlessly miss their own deadlines... They probably thought they could deliver much sooner but if you spend enough time in the sector you learn to dismiss pretty much all statements as nothing more than hope and intention...

The only statements that mean anything are RNS about what has already been completed, plans don't always mean very much in the junior exploration sector where little is within the control of the companies making those plans.

As I've commented before, countless studies show that the vast majority of mine development projects run well behind schedule and massively over budget. Similarly the statistics suggest that the vast majority of explorers fail to ever develop a mine at all and end up in endless rounds of fund raising and share dilution until they go bust.

UFO is just following the pattern and trend that is normal for such companies. It is however normal for the rare few that do make it to also go through many such problems before surprising all those that "gave up" along the way.

The fact we are where we are should be no surprise and tells us nothing about whether we will become one of the rare exceptions that does make it or are simple one of those destined to become part of the majority that get forgotten and lost along the way.

We all live in hope that when we buy a lottery ticket we'll get lucky and win the jackpot, but nobody buys lottery tickets expecting to win the jackpot. Same here with UFO; the only real mistake you can make here is to believe you are investing when we're speculating on a long shot with extreme odds and hoping to get lucky.

Well, ordinarily a placing that more or less doubles the number shares in issue and which was offered at close to half the previous share price would be seen as a disaster and cause a knee jerk collapse in the share price down to the placing price... However we all know the reasons for this placing so it will be interesting to see which way the markets respond once trading resumes!

My own thinking is that it is definitely good news long term but we'll have to wait and see what happens short term.

Well our CEO has faced a lot of flack here over the recent months of inactivity, but today we do actually have positive news to report.

Whilst we will now have to fund our own exploration that has to be a far better situation than moaning about the fact our (ex)partners haven't been exploring our ground for some while....

So let's see what OMI can make of our Columbia prospects now its solely down to us and there's nobody else to blame.

We al know commodity prices are volatile and go up and down all the time such that today's prices mean nothing a month, let alone a year later ... but a quick look at futures prices for iron ore today made me wince! It has been a while since I've seen such a large percentage drop overnight.