Yes, seems balanced. He correctly lays out what needs to happens in the next few months. He also points out that market value doesn't always equal 'fair' value until a bid comes along.
Fortunately, in our case I think the AA buy-out option includes a clause for a neutral 3rd party to determine the 'fair value', so it is much harder for AA to lowball a bid. Besides, given the increasing supply-demand imbalance for copper and the recent Goldman Sachs estimate of future copper price (60% higher), I don't think we need to get too concerned about waiting a few months to prove up the resources.
@FatherTedFeck I am surprised you are still posting on this forum considering your post stating you sold out in January after the XRF results.
I accept your specific point about the 2 mines you mentioned, both of which only started production in 2019 and are the exception that proves the rule, but it doesn't alter the general point about the massive difference in mining in Ecuador vs Australia. Anyway, given your track record of being interested solely in large amounts of ore in South America, regardless of cost or ease of extraction, I am not going to get into a pointless debate.
Instead, I have backed up my own opinion by selling SOLG and buying XTR. Where are you currently invested?
>> I hope this doesn't turn into a Solgold time line.
There are a lot of differences between this and SOLG. I was in SOLG for a while and sold out after Nick Mather 'resigned'.
SOLG is in Ecuador, which is obviously far less developed jurisdiction than Australia, in terms of infrastructure and the political situation, and has no proven mines. The official position of SOLG was that they intend to build a mine at Cascabel, rather than prove up and sell like the declared plan of XTR. On that basis, there was a PFS to develop the mine that was revised and delayed several times and requires a multi-billion dollar investment. There was a huge amount of tension between major shareholders (including BHP, Newcrest and Cornerstone resources) and the board about the future for the company. The finance situation is unclear, yet massive funding will be required. Finally, the market cap was already about 14x higher than XTR, even though that was based purely on exploration results.
In summary, while SOLG has some impressive assets, there was no obvious and relatively short-term route to monetize the discoveries and no serious multi-bag potential in an acceptable timeframe (because the market cap was already high). It may be a massive company someday and I may re-invest at some point, but there are at least a dozen companies ahead of SOLG in my list of likely near-term investment opportunities.
In contrast, XTR has a huge discovery in a great jurisdiction, close to existing infrastructure and developed mines with similar geology. The board has a well-defined and fully financed plan, with specific, short-term objectives and an obvious end-game. The CEO is keeping the market informed and is moving quickly, with no signs of any internal tension. The market cap is relatively low given the prospects and therefore represents huge potential for investor returns within 6-12 months. It is a very different situation than SOLG.
>> Well 27m shares were traded that day and it didn't do a lot. It went down a little the following Monday. So my take from that is that a very limited amount of assay information is not particularly price-sensitive.
My take would be the assays were in line or slightly below expectation and therefore didn't impact the price too much. If the CuEq had been double or half the actual amount, then you would have seen more dramatic changes. You can't take one set of assay results that didn't affect the price too much and assume that all future assays, regardless of quality, will also not affect the price.
If a company holds on to assay results while the directors buy or sell shares, then they would end up in court.
>> Any CEO can't help but know more info about their co than the shareholders.
I agree, but there has to be a line and withholding key assay results while you buy shares is definitely on the wrong side of that line. I'm a director (management, not board) in a FTSE 100 company and we have regular blackout periods where I am not allowed to buy (or sell) shares in the company. For example, after the end of a quarter until we release results. While XTR is obviously under less scrutiny, the same general principle still applies.
>> Bird1 must have lost some value in their history with CB companies
Is it almost certainly Pops1980 who has been attacking CB for many months on forums for CB companies (XTR, BZT, GLR, etc.). I am surprised it took this long for him to be banned, given the content of his posts. I don't what his original problem was, but he has been at it for so long you won't deter him by logical argument. Easier to filter or ignore.
>> Very good Steve4077, I'm only paticularly interested in the shares i hold and have no interest looking for other examples. You seem very keen to diss my concerns, are you a Broker?
No, I'm not a broker :) I am just trying to point out that taking two examples from hundreds of placings is not exactly scientific analysis. Its like tossing a coin twice and getting heads both times, then concluding that tossing a coin always results in heads.
If you feel happier believing that the world is out to get you, then go ahead. But if you want to convince anyone else, then you need actual evidence to support your assertions.
>> My concern is that pre placing ,share prices seem to fall significantly, as youve pointed out yourself, 45% and 20% . Why do you think this is? I would also imagine that to most shareholders a 20% fall is significant.
You are presenting that as a fact based on just the 2 shares you quoted. Come back with 50 examples or 100 and I might start considering you have a point. To make your case properly, you would have to show all placings for all AIM stocks over a period, not just the small number that fit your theory.