RE: oh10 Dec 2020 16:14
Hi CHRI5P I try to think of it in terms of what I think we will be eventually be worth rather than near term price targets. I'm disappointed by the SP but it doesn't rattle me in the slightest, of course I'd much rather the SP had behaved gloriously in the build up to PFS but it certainly doesn't feel like that's going to happen yet. Someone said the other day that LR timetabling the PFS as 12-18 months as a bad pr move, well if honesty is bad pr they're probably right. It seems that in AIM you need some jeopardy, some sense that something amazing could happen tomorrow. EUA is a good example, I'm not knocking the company but you see posters excitedly posting about FOMO Friday, I can't think of a worse reason to see my stock rise. Similarly the herd effect we've all talked about before. GGP could now sit mid table FTSE 250 above established, producing gold companies and yet they're years from revenue. I'm not saying the SP isn't significant, of course it is but I would urge some posters to try not to view the company simply through the prism of the SP. It appears that operational success in the coming year is no guarantee of an improving SP but if we can continue the good work alongside something positive on funding things could definitely change. There does seem to be more possibilities on EU funding but I'm not banking on that. Hopefully Conrad can produce something but I wouldn't want us giving too much of the asset away before we even need the cash. It would be good at least to see that the non-dilutive options are really there rather than just a soundbite. I'll happily admit I put too much store in what Myles said about non-dilutive optionality about his time last year but the metallurgy since then has made us more marketable. Remember Conrad reviewed the data room before entering into a pre-production concentrate marketing agreement so they must believe deals are possible.