Member Info for Lupidog

Same on Lloyds.

I vote through my broker Lloyds. I don't know the arrangements for HL.

Slum
Proxy vote form via
https://www.strategicminerals.net/investors/reports-and-circulars.html
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cxGpPTflx-7F1qGsc2m5UjmZcdiWmzQa/view

DVH I never criticised by email, I was always objective. But that's at least two shareholders that are not being communicated with. How many more?

I read the posts trout. I have no idea of an individual’s agenda, but we can all see the personalities shine through. This helps to form an impression of each individual. We all have an opinion. I disagree with yours. I was dissatisfied and finally left because of the purchase of LCCM and company performance. I became encouraged and reinvested on the rise in commodity pricing and the possibility that LCCM could produce with profit given the numbers stated. The failure to communicate the reality of the long awaited PEPR has dampened my spirit and raises questions which need to be answered to be able to continue with my investment choice. The limited information flow from the BoD does not quite match the reality of actions and so should be questioned. We are about to go into debt and that should be thoroughly questioned as it is a loan against asset and therefore has a massive future implication. It is an investment maker or killer. The reasoning to take on a debt of circa 50% of our mcap needs to be questioned and understood by me as an investor.

Public viewing promotes discussion. Emails are failing to be replied to for quite a while.

I take it that the A$10m (that we don't even have) is now already spent on the bond and sorting out the conditions before we can even produce? If so how do we both fund the exploration and repay the bond? If we borrow and don't start producing to repay? I would say that we need to see the new plan. But we saw the plans for Hanns Camp, we saw the Plans for LCCM and we see the plans for Redmoor and where has that taken us to date? Working very hard, Mr Broome is a moot argument if the product of your labour is a negative return. It only benefits you and not your investors. This equates to you not working for me, even though I pay you to do so. Show us results. Tell us how you will achieve those results. Buy shares with your own funds to a point where you lose as much as we do if you continue to devalue us.

You should take a look at the positions currently held and with which companies. Past positions held and past company performance and current status. Form your own opinions. But my opinion is that we will never get 100% focus from someone with fingers in so many pies. You can almost understand the companies past performance if factor in what you uncover.

NAE (Chairman AB) had an asset in Redmoor. SML (Chairman?) had some money. NAE sold the asset to SML. SML took money by way of dilution from shareholders and gave the money to NAE. Now NAE has the money and we have the Asset and terrible shareholder value and AB is still the Chairman of both. How do you get away with selling something to yourself with other peoples money?

I have just re-watched the last few proactive videos and re-read the last annual report along with the last few corresponding RNS's. My investment here appears to be akin to paying for a cruise and then the ship ignoring the itinerary and visiting different ports to the ones advertised and paid for. I want to be positive; my money is in here. But I am at the stage that I fully expect little or no communication from the Chairman again for another year or until he needs something else, little or no communication from the rest of the BoD, until their hand is forced by regulation to impart information and the most galling thing is that any such information will within 4 weeks of announcement change or only be partially correct. I want to be positive here, but it is blatantly obvious we did not get a JV because we could not. The larger loan argument goes against the annual report explanation of funding less than 3 weeks after it was published. I want to be positive here, because I want me to enjoy the rewards of my investment and not fund others lifestyles. To the BoD (from a shareholder), as we are obviously not even going to get a Zoom or other interactive online meeting: SML is the sum of your decisions and actions. You have bled the shareholders with abysmal performance. Rather than complain about the sentiment and comments, face us and explain why we should have any faith in you given you past performance. Give us a reason to stay invested that is still actually the same reason in 3 months’ time and not some reshuffled version. I want to remain positive here, but you the BoD need to restore the trust if you can. I will go back to something I said a while ago, if a manager/director in most companies made the errors and reported to shareholders the way you have done, they would no longer be in a job. We all accept things can change and the unexpected can crop up, but we pay you to steer us through this and not to trip over every single hurdle. Sort it out quickly and professionally.

The Market does not anticipate a placing, but nice try tradedesk. We know that for certain as because if there was going to be one we would have been told there wasn't going to be one.

It would have been interesting. The topic of shareholder value may have cropped up.

We are all hearing from each other, when we should be hearing from the BoD.

No, but I have posted my vote today anyway. It is all I can do apart from selling. The RNS didn't hit the price the way it hit my perception. I will probably calm down in a few days, but more trust is eroded. Investment is about actual shareholder value, not the conversation of it.

I had changed my mind on LCCM given the uptick in the price of Copper. I reinvested on the information provided. I can see why now there was no JV. This takes me back to my disbelief when we first acquired LCCM. Phoenix paying Resilience to take LCCM off their hands and then Resilience selling the pup on to us. Remind me who did the Due Diligence again?

I am simply angry that shareholders are treated in such an unprofessional way.

They are being factually correct that the PEPR is the only remaining formality. The implied perception is that the release of the PEPR is complete and not subject to review after certain conditions are to be met. However the reality is that the PEPR is conditional and this will drag on and on yet again. We are not to be trusted with the information required to make sound investment choices.

Not doom and gloom Slurm. It is about the information we are given and the way in which it is given, versus the reality of the situation. We are still piece fed selectively even after what has passed and the need to restore positive shareholder sentiment. If we can just revisit last weeks Proactive interview in light of today's RNS. No mention of what they must have know with regards to the conditions. In particular listen from 08:43, We we being told about today's release of the PEPR "that is the only remaining formality to allow us to get this operation back into a position where it can start producing". Except the conditions tell a different story.

" AUD $10m to fund production at Paltridge North, exploration work and pre-listing costs". No mention of "An environmental security deposit".

Would that be the same SML project manager Jonathon Trewartha?