If you would like to put a question forward to Tuesday evening's webinar guest speakers, Trident Royalties' CEO, Adam Davidson, Kavango Resources' CEO, Ben Turney, Christopher Nicholson, Managing Director of ACF Equity Research, please do so here.
Robins- "we are all more concerned about .. .projects"
Certainly not all and perhaps not even the majority, far too many are concerned about relatives and making vague allegations of fraud and misconduct all anonymously
Banbury-BS Both AIM and independent audits require disclosure on RPT
YOU ARE ALLEDGING FRAUD!!!!!!!!!!
BS-'share concerns about transparency' to what? something that it is not required but exists with an anonymous poster?
I repeat make a written complaint- its laughable that you only want 'transparency' one way. Put your name behind it
Family relations are easy to prove. MAKE YOUR COMPLAINT!
Robbins-Harm? If AB had answered with a detailed response then the complaint would have been about the specific words used etc etc.
example -Did you hit your wife on Nov 24th?
answer- i never hit my wife
Complaint- See he did not answer my question
If Banbury or anyone else wants to make an fraud complaint or allegation of fraud then do so in writing to the proper authorities and stand behind it.. In Canada making such a false complaint is a violation of law and subject to damages. I suspect it is comparable in the UK
This is BS on so many levels. RRR has gotten so many loans from so many different sources and someone is concerned they might be a family connection via director? Was there loan terms materially different from the other loans?
Personally I am more concerned about :
2-Cash from Congo
3-timing of ELEP IPO
4-timing of Australian IPO or funding
ANY DEBT in company that has no operating cash flow is a concern even if it is a related party debt
Banbury Related party transactions are disclosed in the financial statements. Mr. Bell responded with a broad denial.
If you believe that there is a non disclosed related party transaction that is very serious allegation of fraud.
Your proper course of action is to file written complaint to RRR with copies to its attorneys, accountants and the regulatory bodies.
This is not the forum in which an anonymous poster makes allegation of fraud, particularly after a broad denial Sorry you do not get to stand behind "Oh AB did not answer my specific question" You will never be satisfied with any answer AB provides
Banbury- No need to stand your ground. Mr. Bell answered this earleir 14.56 in which he stated in part
"and of course I am unrelated to any director of a former lender, whether sharing the surname Bell or not.'
IMO you lose any credibility when you complain about something that has already been answered unless your posts are really designed to damage the share price and people's reputations
Capt_kurk LOL there is no requirement for RRR/ALR to build a refinery. Only the material has to be processed/refined in Zimbabwe
It is laughable to believe that every single producer has to be a have a refinery. Like all government manate issued worklwide this one will be modified and delayed.
The key issue is not a refinery but generating cash flow and second what exactly do they have on their licenses
Banbury- I am also concerned about "radio silence". If one truck is worth an RNS then surely completion of the task of sending 200 tonnes is worth an RNS, same thing with a ship leaving, ship arriving and sale. If share placement is made worth those purchasers be aware of that information or be provided any additional information regarding Congo?
The controversy regarding the pictures should be explained via an RNS (so as it is vetted and RRR be held responsible for its accuracy-although I am not sure much teeth those rules actually have).
The need for commercial confidentiality is understandable and justifiable but such claims/statements should be made via an official RRR position stated in an RNS not in a media interview. In Canada/US if material statement are made via sources (which occasionally happens) then the regulatory authorities either force of the companies voluntarily repeat such information via news releases and/or other regulatory channels. This ensures proper context and disclosure to the investing public
All could be well within RRR but I dont like the AIM regulatory framework. One annual report and one interim 6 month report is not sufficient given the high risk nature of the companies listed on the AIM.
o RRR expects the most important near-term developments to be:
o Announcement of first shipments of Lithium Ore
o Release of arbitration result in the DRC
o An update on how to progress New Ballarat Gold Corporation
o RRR expects to initiate activity this month on its lead Burkina Faso project with a view to possible short term production of alluvial Gold
1) ELEP was NOT listed as important short term development
Helpful that not responsive to my message but I will comment on yours
1) I agree with approach (buy, use stockpile or produce) and then export the 3%. It is lower risk and significantly lower CAPEX.
2) Everyone is impacted by the new rules including RRR/ALR however the difference is the approach to mitigate that risk (see point 1) which others because of their historical approach and sunk costs will find it at best very difficult if not impossible
I already posted that I thought this was a good approach which can generate positive cash flow
This one caught my eye so I started watching it today. I havent done much on AIM and I am not really sure I like the disclosure rules (or lack thereof) I am used to the Canadian rules and I find it more challenging to a risk assessment given the lack of information
I would appreciate your thought on my comments/observations
In listening to the interview I got the impression that AB is supremely confident that there are/or will be positive development for cash not contingent on an immediate stock placement. The naysayers were posting that share would be placed immediately after the GM approval. That has not happened nor has there been a second tranche announced after the first tranche of a convertible announced on Oct 19th
Perhaps wishful thinking on my part but I suspect AB is trying to get a significant investment from a 3rd party (Chinese?)
Why goodbye ALR?
So plans have to be submitted, then government reviews, modifies etc (all taking time), then the plants still have to be build (more time)
Meanwhile exports of concentrates will continue because the government collects taxes.
Personally I dont the government will require every miner to build their own individual refinery operation. This also eliminates the small miners which will complain to government which will then force a refinery to purchase ore from other miners (this happens in other countries with other metals such gold, silver or copper).
This is clearly the direction Zimbabwe is moving towards but it will not all be resolved by April 2024. Export will continue past the date
Banbury -your comment about directors not getting paid is taken out of context which is on page 12 which states in part
"which includes the possibility of Directors reducing or foregoing their salaries if required" This same section made reference to both ELEPs IPO and cash from Congo , neither of which happened.
Now its 12 months later and despite those non events RRR is still in business and it was not necessary for Directors to forego payment (assuming this Directors did in fact get paid)
ELEP's IPO is outside the control of RRR as well as the timing of the arbitral award so continued comments that AB or directors should not get paid is nonsensical. They (or anyone else replacing them) will want to get paid.
Now having written that it is 12 months and IMO there should be more disclosure about is the delay about the arbitral award. Are there any rules, guidance or requirement as to when the decision is finalized or is it totally arbitrarily and or capricious as to timing. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Presumably arbitration was the alternative to litigation in the court system. Now its Dec 2023 what is the plan of action (or inaction if nothing can be done)?
Helpful that $400K annual costs is comparable for public companies in US and Canada as well. On top of that cost is the minimum annual project cost for each property, then the cost per country- It all adds up.
The comments that since shareholders are suffering that those costs should be free or waived are simply ignorant.
RRR can cut substantially cut costs by finding a CEO who works for free
Position requires a tolerance for accepting both written and verbal abuse, false and damaging statements and comments about family members.
Prior history of working with public companies preferred with a track record of achieving a 3x+ return for shareholders in less than 6 months.
Positive results need to be achieved without issuing more shares or increasing debt
who wants to set up a new email address to sort out the inquiries?
RUNUTZ@gmail.com or something similar could be used.
Theeeeduke/Capt_kurt AB fees went from a total of 144k (2021) to a total of 164 (2022) a 14% increase
Of that 20K increase Pension and social security accounted for 8K which presumably are mandated by your government so AB net to himself had a 4% increase
IMO the total is better representation than selecting isolated numbers but if someone is inclined to do that then one could say the consultancy fee had no increase or AB reduced his discretionary fee to ZERO.
"We will KNOW BY the end of December either way.
PS -as an additional side note, there several posters who thought that RRR would complete a financing right after the GM granting that approval. I did not make such a post but I did think a financing would have been announced by now. I suspect AB has been putting it off as long as possible in the hopes of receiving materially positive news (or perhaps this is my wishful thinking and no one want to finance RRR even at toxic levels)
My take is a similarly qualified opinion which in 2022 stated
"Material Uncertainty Related to Going Concern
We draw attention to note 1.2 in the Financial Statements, which indicates that the Group is required to raise funds within the going concern period. As stated in note 1.2, these events or conditions, along with the other matters as set forth in note 1.2, indicate that a material uncertainty exists that may cast significant doubt on the Group’s and Parent Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. Our opinion is not modified in respect of this matter.
In auditing the Financial Statements, we have concluded that the Director’s use of the going concern basis of accounting in the preparation of the Financial Statements is appropriate. Our evaluation of the Directors’ assessment of the Group’s and Company’s ability to continue to adopt the going concern basis of accounting included:
• Challenging the forecasts prepared by the Directors in their assessment of the Group’s and Parent Company’s ability to meet their financial obligations as they fall due for a period of at least 12 months from the date of approval of the Financial Statements.
The forecasts demonstrated that the Group and Parent Company will require additional funding, or will need to dispose of investments, to meet their liabilities as and when they fall due.
• The forecasts also indicated that the current funding will not be sufficient to meet the planned additional investments and exploration activities.
Our responsibilities and the responsibilities of the Directors, with respect to going concern, are described in the relevant sections of this report."
reality check RRR survived one year without either ELEP or cash from Congo. The auditors will most likely believe that survival will continue. They may want to see documentation of any financing offers, settlement proposal on Congo, export details and payment for the lithium. This last part is particularly significant since the auditors do not want to look like fools if exports are made and profitable but then say in their opinion the company can not survive
We will be the end of December either way