Member Info for SharketMare

Just because - in your opinion - rail services run better privately than they did before, that does not mean that in the future they can be run even better back under state control.

People act as it's literally impossible for a state run service to better than a privately run service. This is nothing but ideological nonsense. Of course it can be done.

Starmer is in such a strong position that we could quite feasibly start thinking about some of the serious overhaul this country needs - renationalisation of our infrastructure instead of selling more of it off to Middle Eastern SWFs, a tax on wealth (not income) to help address ballooning inequality, planning reform to facilitate house building and other key parts of infra (e.g. data centres), a clampdown on immigration so we can properly control the numbers of people who come in and out of this country (as countless states the world over do, yet never seem to be called r*cist for doing so).

Instead he has watered down or backed away from virtually every pledge he made to win the leadership. It's funny, I never hear the people who claim the Leave campaigned won on a pack of lies level the same criticism at Keir Starmer. I wonder why?

"How bad would the country be if the state ran water, power, rail, comms? Do you even recall British rail?"

And herein lies the biggest logical fallacy of them all.

The state of these services are so poor, and they are so expensive compared to our peers on the continent that many are asking just how much worse they can be?

The idea that state ownership of these vital parts of our infrastructure means they don't work well is total nonsense. It's just as ridiculous as those who claim that private equity ownership of formerly listed businesses automatically sets them up for overly levered balance sheets and a reduction in quality of products and services. There are countless examples of private equity being excellent stewards of companies, we just don't hear about them.

Similarly, there are state owned railways the world over that operate to a higher standard than those in the UK. And at a fraction of the price.

As Bozi rightly points out, when competition exists at the government/enterprise level and not with the end customer, privatisation does not work, and we all get shafted.

I actually don't think he was a lunatic whatsoever. I've met the man twice as I used to live not too far from him. He's an honest bloke who cares about people and society in a way that very few, if any of the Tory MPs that have been in power for the last 15 years or so can claim to.

I don't agree with much of his politics, but we could have done a far lot worse (and arguably did, with Boris).

Politicians of both stripes have managed the economic system implemented by Thatcher and Reagan in the 80s. None of the leaders on both sides of the pond since have been particularly good.

The closest we came to a leader that would meaningfully change the status quo was Corbyn, and he was hounded and painted as a failure by the establishment despite winning more votes than any Labour leader since Blair.

I spoil my ballot paper each year and will continue to do so until politics fundamentally changes and starts attracting a half decent caliber of person, both from a competency and character standpoint.

It's an abysmal state of affairs.

Painful times for patient holders. I thought I'd been savvy buying in tranches down from 15p. That my 10p average was rock solid. How wrong I was. Accumulating cash to bring my average down here when we're given clarity on the way forward.

"Last chance I'm afraid before you join the filters."

Just incredible.

1984, he disappears when there's a glut of new information that shows we are nowhere near raising finance to start construction, or have any intention of taking this to production. Always convenient isn't it.

Up we pop. Double figures will be nice from a psychological standpoint.

SOLG resurrected over Easter? Mather the Messiah to emerge from his exile and show us the way forward?

This was the UT.

Playing devil's advocate more than anything, Bozi. In an earlier post I suggested that this was a dose of realism to proceedings given some of the numbers thrown around here over the last few weeks.

Add, the only thing I can think that he might be doing is goading a lowball. This was a SOLG sponsored interview so they will have had full editorial control on what was published.

I'm actually shocked he said that add. A damp end to an otherwise promising interview.

Asked if he would accept USD 0.30c (23p) a share for a full takeover, SC claims he would take that. Some realism.

"We believe we'll obtain all the permits to BEGIN CONSTRUCTION in 2 years from now"

Bottom line is this - we are conserving cash, de-risking the project through permitting, land purchases, and waiting for someone to come to us with an offer than works for management with skin in the game. The strategic review is just a way of buying time. Personally I don't think we will ever seen a formal output from this workstream.

SC: "The big capital number, we believe you could finance this through various pieces.... - we need 1.5bn - that's a lot of money for a company of our size. So I think you're going to get a strategic to take this through to production. Whether we're involved on a royalty basis, or we own a part of it, that's what the future is going to tell us."

Interesting on the royalty piece. What a dream that would be.

SC: "In the short term we're working on some non-dilutive financing. When I say non-diluting that is not an equity offering. At Cascabel, we're looking to derisk the project to make it more attractive via low cost initiatives, such as getting permits. We do not need to do anymore drilling at Alpala. We don't need anymore ore, we know we have more tonnage, but we have a generational mine now. It's really derisking and strengthening the balance sheet that's number one. We need to get some cash into the treasury, we have some ideas. Non equity. Over the next few weeks or months we'll have some proposals we'll have worked through. "

Interviewer: "Why are you planning to take it into production versus selling the assets?"

SC: "Well we'll continue to de-risk it, that's a very good question, and by de-risk it I mean getting environmental permits, right of ways etc. We'll continue to de-risk it. And if a strategic initiative comes along as we continue to de-risk the project, a fully permitted and ready to construct project is of much higher value than one that doesn't have the permits. As we continue to de-risk it, I think people will be interested in this project as an opportunity, whether as a joint venture or some other transaction to get involved in this project."

That is not the answer of a man who intends on taking this asset to production!

What is extremely heartening is that despite us needing cash fairly soon, there doesn't seem to be any downward pressure on the SP. Quite the opposite in fact.