Member Info for JDAU

I’m not here to make friends, I’m here to defend my investment and call out BS when I see it.
If you think that makes me arrogant then I’ll accept that.

Ps. If I get attacked I.e being called a child for asking a perfectly reasonable question or accused of being a banned poster just because ‘Ad hominem’ is the only way these muppets can discredit my argument then I feel I have every right to get shirty with said posters.

As I say, if you don’t like it, feel free to filter me and not read my posts, but prepare to read a whole load of non evidence based BS and I guess it’ll be up to you to work out who’s telling porkies, note that I reference my posts so they can be verified, meanwhile other posters... well, look for yourself.

For the record, this argument started because Andrew refused to answer a simple question about how he got to his valuation. I have a feeling that’s because I absolutely caught him out peddling BS.

Filtering me for asking someone to justify a statement which certainly appeared to have zero justification... ok then, at least my perfectly legitimate questions won’t bother you and subsequently (and presumably) you won’t feel the need to take stabs at me anymore.

Andrew, I can still see your posts and you seem to have wilfully ignored my perfectly reasonable question:
“How did you arrive at that figure of 2pps?”

I assume it’s because the answer is, as predicted, you actually don’t know, you just took a wild guess based on zero workings and asserted, without justification, that that is the correct top end of the potential valuation.

But sure, a complete lack of ability to communicate business sense or ability to answer a pretty simple question about your valuation, and yet a holding of 10m shares, seems plausible... though I don’t believe it and I’m not sure many others will.

As a side note, I add nothing? I don’t want to come across as big headed but I’m one of the few posters who doesn’t talk complete nonsense on this board and instead researches, posts critically and most importantly PROVIDES EVIDENCE for statements I make, feel free to check out my post history, says it all.

Good luck with your “10m shares” that “definitely exist”.

You’re right Andrew doesn’t have to justify his opinion to anyone, but in the same breath can’t expect his opinion to be taken seriously by anyone if he arrives at it through means with which he can’t explain, especially considering we’re discussing business. There are pretty clear cut, widely accepted ways in which a valuation can be reached (although granted they are rarely a concrete set of rules and thus discrepancies in valuations can occur) though I’ve never heard of anyone being taken seriously who refuses to remotely adopt these guidelines and instead opts for a wet finger in the air.

To provide an analogy, I could for instance say that my house is worth £8m as whimsically as Andrew has decided the price of a share should reach 2p and no more. That doesn’t mean i’m correct. There is zero justification for an assertion, hence that assertion is practically meaningless.

Ps, the statement you made: “facts and figures aren't the be all and end all of coming to a conclusion about something.“ makes me pretty much not give any weight to any of your opinions.

Try using that logic (or lack of it) in any argument and you come across, imo, a little clueless.
If you’d care to read it i’ll happily demonstrate my point with a jovial example:

“Yes m’lord, I understand that the prosecution makes a pretty compelling case including evidence, testimonies and character witnesses but it’s my opinion that he didn’t do it, I don’t think he’s guilty, I don’t think you should either, ok, now i’m pretty sure everyone in the jury is also in agreement that the defendant is not guilty because why wouldn’t they be, great, I rest my case”

I’ll give you one guess as to how that would play out...

Jezzoo, it’s pretty clear you don’t like me.. or that you just resort to consistently trying to assassinate my character when you can’t prove what i’m saying is wrong... you suggest that no-ones out to get me on one day, and then the next day insinuate that i’m a banned poster (who whilst I had a bit of respect for in terms of research, I had very little respect for in terms of uneccessary and often unjustified ramping rambling on, as you say about super spikes) in an attempt to discredit my perfectly reasonable posts.

I’m not sure how me asking another poster to justify a figure I deem them to have very little justification for annoys you, but i’m sorry for the inconvenience regardless.

Pie314, with the utmost of respect as I don’t wish to argue, let me politely re-phrase what i’m saying.

I have no intention of bringing my personal valuation into the spotlight for dissection, mainly because I’m not the one asserting XTR should be “X” value.

To re-iterate, i’m analysing Andrews valuation after he posted it and so far I see zero substance to it.
I am simply waiting for him to give some sort of reasonable justification for the figure he asserted, which was “not above 2pps”.

Perhaps i’ll look at discussing my personal valuation at a later date but unless you want to trawl through my post history to find it, you won’t be (re-)reading my views until then.

Pie314, I appreciate you’re trying to move the situation forward but i’d suggest the burden of responsibility to back up a statement made does not lie with me on this occasion.

I’ve previously gone into pretty specific detail regarding my personal view on the valuation of the company, I don’t wish to repeat myself as it’s not me who’s asserting a certain figure is the correct calculation.

I’m happy to wait patiently for Andrew to provide some substance for his statement.

For the record, I’m not saying your wrong or that you don’t have a right to believe that figure is correct, or that you being cautious until delivery is demonstrated is a bad thing.

I’m just asking for you to show your workings because if you can’t, then you have just chosen a number, essentially at random because you feel like it fits and then (the part I take issue with) you are proclaiming that figure, your figure, to be the valuation others should consider to be legitimate.

To me, that is absolutely absurd.

Andrew, so back to what I asked you before, what methodology have you used to come to that valuation?
Presumably you have worked out a valuation and applied a discount to it on the basis that it is potential which in your eyes may or may not come to fruition?

I’m not sure calling me a child devalues what i’m asking from you, or just makes you appear to insult me because you can’t come back at my question with any good rebutall. Jury’s still out on that one.

I’m asking you a very clear and concise (and in my mind mature) question because to me, at the moment, it appears that you’ve just plucked a figure out of thin air with very little to substantiate it.

How did you arrive at that figure of 2pps?

I think you misunderstood my meaning, in the HYPOTHETICAL example I wrote we wouldn’t be terminating our alluvial JV contract, we would simply be not pursuing alluvial contractors to work the alluvials as we could legitimately, for instance class them as a “waste product” in the way of our Hard rock that we want moved.
They (Nexus) don’t own the alluvials, we do, the contract would still stand and they could have a share of any alluvial contractors income... which in the example above, wouldn’t exist.

Anyway, we’re digressing as I’m absolutely not stating this is what’s happening, I’m simply stating that Nexus aren’t the ones with the power here, they don’t own .... aside from a contract with us stating that as long as they contribute, they can have a share of any alluvial contractor income.

If there’s no income from alluvial contractors, then there’s no share... catch my drift?

As I’ve stated, and for absolute clarity, I’m not suggesting the above is happening, just that we (XTR) own the asset and are firmly in the driving seat, with all his experience I don’t believe Colin Bird will be taken for a ride.

So just to clarify Andrew, you’re saying there’s no real method to your workings in terms of deciding that this is worth 2pps, you haven’t included asset value or the forward looking potential earnings from current alluvial contracts, new alluvial contracts expected, fast track hard rock that’s progressing and due to start with Omnia Q1 2019 or our main DFS’d asset with circa $40m NPV, it’s just that you’ve decided this should be worth 2p and nothing more?

Forgive me if I don’t give a whole lot of weight to your valuation...

Well (completely hypothetically) a shrewd businessperson might offer to cut them out all together if they don’t play ball re negotiating a fair deal - considering we actually own the assets..

For instance, we could offer the alluvial clearing and any subsequent benefit should a given company wish to process is (far be it from us what they do with what is our “waste” in the way of hard rock) as a freebie to a company who wished to work our hard rock for us.

For the record, I’m not suggesting that this is by any means what is going on, I’m just suggesting there’s more than one way to skin a cat, and Nexus, with only a tie to an alluvial JV contract don’t exactly have us over a barrel.

They could also be keeping us sweet because they want a slice of the pie elsewhere as you’re suggesting.

We won’t know until we’re told so imo there’s little use in speculation, and even less use in assuming the renegotiation is them giving us this to take from us elsewhere as that is by no means the only reason that they would be inclined to negotiate.

Andrew, I’m keen to understand your logic when you state “this is only worth circa 2pps at the moment”.
That only equates to a circa £7m Mcap.

I wholeheartedly disagree but am willing to hear you justify why that’s your figure and it shouldn’t be exceeded?
What’s your method you worked from to establish what our Mcap should be?

I ask because to me it seems like that’s just a figure plucked out of nowhere in spite of what we have on the table...

Gixxer-600, just saw your question about entry fees, sorry mate I missed it earlier.
Think this is what you’re looking for:

Previous agreement:
“On 20 June 2017, the Company announced that the parties had agreed to revise the terms of the February Agreement signed on the 13 February 2017 ("June Agreement"). The parties agreed that Nexus would receive all front-end fees received from the Contract Miners.”

New agreement:
“Any Entry Fees payable by any Mining Contractor to Explorator after 31 May 2018 will now be divided equally between the Company and Nexus.”

Reference: http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=XTR&ArticleCode=0ohztuh2&ArticleHeadline=Alluvial_Collaboration_Agreement_terms_amended

N.b second day on the trot we’re in the top 10 risers (6th at the moment).

Great to see, keep on trucking XTR!

MM’s certainly seem happy to walk this back up to where we came from...

...not sure why we’d need a placing with cash in bank sufficient to support cash burn for a while and income coming in from alluvials to the point where we don’t need to sell all the gold that’s been produced...

Totally fair, I’m keen to see the finer details too!

Interesting to see what the plans are?
Have you had your eyes shut!?!

They’re right here, we’re months into a phased study and looking to start hard rock production Q1 2019...

http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=XTR&ArticleCode=ruik3to6&ArticleHeadline=Hard_Rock_Collaboration_Agreement_Update

Unless you mean it’ll be interesting to see further development of these plans (possibly including FB)... in which case i’d agree with you, we’re expecting a costed production model in the near term..

Not quite sure your lack of understanding of our operation should necessarily be a reason for anyone to buy shares all of a sudden...