Member Info for squeaky19

I have to say I am with Captainswag.

If people bought recently on the expectation of a divi annoucement yesterday (which was never coming!) then it is perhaps not surprising that a few people left again, even though the RNS at face value was "good news".

However, it would seem to me that yesterdays sh*tshow was probably caused by the presentation of the BoD. They gave the impression that:

1. There are "potentially fatal risks to the continuation of the company" (they actually said this twice).
2. That the company would in all likelihood leave LSE.

These "impressions" were then picked up and reported by the FT (an interview or were they just "in the room"?)

So far so logical since perception can be everything.

What bemuses me is why would the BoD make such candid and potentially damaging statements in a presentation that wasn't reflected in an RNS?
Why would they not then not seek to clarify / refute the FT article once it has come out?

This leaves me with the "hope" that the answer is that they wanted to throw a bone to Blackrock et al (i.e. cheap shares from spooked PIs). It's not a very encouraging hope. :-(

I'd love to hear a better theory because no doubt my perception is wrong.

For the record I am holding a pile of shares, I sold nothing yesterday (and actually bought some at 309) and I intend to continue holding because I believe that the fundamentals remain strong. But I may be proven to be an idiot.

Right, I've had time to look at the video again now...

During the presentation the CEO said (re-phrasing slightly from 15:15 on video):

"if we re-dom we won't be able to keep our premium listing on LSE, this is because of the 09th sanctions package, and this means we will not be allowed to retain our premium listing through the issue of depositary receipts for the Kazak entity".

So what's the score here? Did the FT deliberately misquote him? Did he misspeak?

Furthermore, at no point did he clarify that the 9th set of sanctions don't prevent the depositary receipts for a non premium listing (unless he said this in the Q&A or afterwards, I've not had time to watch the last 30 minutes yet). And if he didn't clarify that the question becomes why not? Remaining silent after saying the above could only lead to people speculating about negative conurtations such as delisting from LSE. Madness!

And then at 17:45 :

"in conclusion, the current juristictional position is unsustainable and contains potential fatal risks to the survivability of the company as a going concern".

and at 19:00

"to reiterate that we want to achieve the redom as quickly as possible, as soon as practicable, to removed this lingering potentially fatal risk threatening the survival of the company"

I'm no corporate expert, but how do you make such statements in a presentation that are not even hinted at in an RNS issued the same morning?????

Sorry I find that quite shocking :-(

I wish I hadn't got out of bed today!

My cheeky top-ups at 309 don't look too clever now ;-)

So is Evgeny going to sue the FT for libel?

They miss out the word "premium" and all hell breaks loose?

Hi Ramp

I would recommend re-watching the presentation when it comes up on the website. He used that word twice and without relistening I can't swear to exactly what context it was in but afaik he was suggesting that the redom was the only solution.

I'll watch again later when it's up.

I hate to say it, but for an LSE listed UK plc to say "we might ditch our LSE listing" in a presentation 5 hours after an RNS that is silent on the matter (by omission) doesn't strike me as very clever!

GLA DYOR

blueburg - Pure Gold went "bankrupt" months ago, please do not conflate them with this.

Unfotunately I had to break off after an hour to go to a meeting.

However, two things were very clearly stated / shown during the first hour:
1. The LSE listing is very much NOT guaranteed, and even if it remains it would be a DR
2. Nesis said that the risks to the company of the current structure could be fatal (he said this TWICE!) which is why they are looking at re-dom.

For point 2 I'd like to relisten when the video is up but he seemed to be suggesting that the 9th package of sanctions that prevents financial services companies working for Russian miners was the sticking point?

Either way, if you hear the word "fatal" and are of a nervous disposition I can understand you selling. FWIW I am not selling!

GLA DYOR

2 of the 3 options in this presentation relating to listing show trading on LSE as discontinued...

Hopefully there will be a lot of questions asked on this topic?

GLA DYOR

All the best for those attending today.

My main concern from the RNS is the following statement:

"Should the Company proceed with a re-domiciliation to the AIFC, The Company’s primary listing may move to AIX where its Ordinary Shares will be traded with the new ISIN. The Company will look to ensure continuous liquidity of trading."

Does this mean de-listing from LSE? I'm with ii and it doesn't look as though I can trade equities on AIX...Somewhat concerning???

Other than that it seems a reasonable set of results although they are still predicting AISC of 1300 - 1400 USD when 2021 figures were 925 - 975 USD. That's quite a cost increase and has got to hurt profitability moving forwards unless gold moves a lot higher?

GLA DYOR

I'm still new here, but I'm sure I've heard a number of people say that the AGM is in March and that is generally when dividends are announced. I can't for the life of me see why Poly would change the habits of good governance tomorrow. So I for one do not believe there will be an "announcement" of a divi tomorrow. There might be lots of nodding in the right direction but if it's not the AGM I don't see an official announcement?

Ponly Fans?

I'll get my coat...

As a complete noob I would say we could hear the following:

1. We have continued to sell inventory (plus exchange rate blah) and the debt has gone down to X. However, X might not be as low as people hope?
2. We are continuing to exchange shares out of NSD but this has been extended until June (we already know this?). Could this (contrary to previous announcements) extend the period until a dividend can be paid? Or delay the asset split?
3. The asset split will take place in Quarter Y and this is later than anyone expected?
4. We expect to be able to announce a dividend at dat Z. However, Z is much further in the future than people expect.

Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

Those are my current doomsday scenarios (not very scary imo).

Others that could raise their head?
A) We anticipate new sanctions that will affect the company / its banks / individuals.
B) The Russian state are going to seize the Russian assets

Personally I don't see either of those as very likely, but those are the risks we face imo GLA DYOR :-)

I think we just need some positive news. We were encouraged to stump up for the sale process and now we just see tumbleweed...

I appreciate that there will be NDAs but it seems unlikely that such a document would prevent CNR saying "we have at least x serious suitors" even if x is 1. Otherwise this will languish at 17p forever?

I for one am flabbergasted that we have such low volume, but I attribute this to the radio silence from the company. It seems to be the most counter intuitive sales technique known to man!!!

Thanks buckeye, great post.

As you have pointed out and those tables show the fundamentals for this company remain awesome imho. Yes there are risks, but the BOD seem to have navigated them rather well so far.

Even if disaster struck and the Russian assets were seized I still think we are buying a £5 note per share for kazak assets for whatever price we can get at the moment (just my opinion ofc!). I hope to be here for the long term and that makes 30p shifts irrelevant to me but each to his own. GLA and DYOR.

I just got my last lot for 322p so I expect it to go down from here ;-)

touché

I have "plenty" but was due a top up this morning. nvm GLA :-)

Not a great morning for ii to fall over and prevent me buying a few more :-(

GLA!

I take your point about tether and it could be interesting. My previous comment relates to all of the crypto assets that are not backed by anything physical, sorry for any confusion.

Erm, nobody should need to explain to you that all crypto is a ponzi scheme?

It has no "value" as a currency because it is not stable enough to be used as such.

It's "value" is entirely equal to the amount of money that the next greater fool is prepared to pay you for the worthless string of bits that somebody expended energy to create.

This doesn't mean that you cannot make money by trading in it, but I don't think you can call it "investing", it is gambling pure and simple. Furthermore it is specifically gambling upon the stupidity of others. But given we are "invested" in a hole in the ground that hasn't been dug yet I suppose you could call that nit picking ;-)

I got all the excess shares that I requested via ii.

I can see no logic as to why people would have been scaled back.

On one account I had 3980 shares, sold 663 and got them back as my 1/6 but also asked for and got 50k extra which are now showing in my ii account. The process was very simple and very clear with ii so I would challenge your broker. GL