Member Info for ThomasFoulser

I also came away impressed by how disciplined the strategy is. There’s no emotional attachment to projects, no “we must build a mine at all costs” bravado. Drill, define, value, then decide whether production, JV or sale makes most sense for shareholders. That mindset is rare in juniors, and it’s usually the difference between success and destruction.

Layer all of this onto the macro backdrop discussed in the interview and it becomes even clearer why Ajax is where it is. We’re in a metals-driven cycle, whether people like it or not. Copper for electrification, gold for monetary protection, silver for industrial demand. Argentina opening up politically at exactly the right moment is just an added tailwind, and being in one of the most mining-friendly provinces removes a huge amount of sovereign risk that the market still seems to be pricing in.

For me, the interview didn’t add hype, it added clarity. Ajax is still valued like a speculative explorer when it’s actually evolving into a multi-asset development company with credible partners, funding visibility and a clear path to production or monetisation. That disconnect doesn’t last forever.

We’ve moved off the floor, but this is still nowhere near fair value. The market will catch up once drill results and resource numbers start replacing assumptions with facts. When that happens, today’s price will look just as absurd as sub-6p did not long ago.

I was away and have seen the price finally reach more deserved levels, but we are still undervalued and should be sitting 20–30p. Just watched the Ippolito Cattaneo interview and, honestly, it’s one of the most impressive deep dives into Ajax I’ve seen to date. Not in a promotional way, but in the sense that it finally lays out, calmly and coherently, why this company is so badly mispriced.

What really struck me is how unusual Eureka is as an asset. A 400-year-old copper and gold mining district that has never been drilled is almost unheard of in today’s world. Multiple majors have walked over it, spent money, done studies, put historic numbers on it, yet nobody ever pulled the trigger. Ajax picking it up for $170k after it previously changed hands for nearly $8m is the kind of opportunistic acquisition you only get once every cycle. And that was before copper, gold and silver decided to go vertical.

The initial drill programme is modest by design, but that’s exactly the point. This isn’t a wildcat punt, it’s a confirmation exercise first, followed by scale. One and a half kilometres now, fully funded for five and a half kilometres thereafter, with a clear aim of publishing an MRE in H1 2026. If the oxide numbers stack up and the sulphides show what the geology suggests they should, Eureka very quickly moves from “interesting” to “strategic”.

What also gets overlooked is how joined-up the wider portfolio is. Eureka gives you near-surface oxide copper with deeper sulphide upside. Leon adds copper and silver with an untested sulphide system beneath an already defined resource. Rakaita brings the polymetallic angle where silver is effectively a by-product. Pereira Velo in Brazil is a straightforward open-pit gold story, and the Appian comparison with Serrote is not marketing fluff, it’s grounded in geography and history. A project sold for $30m and then flipped for $420m ten years later is exactly the sort of precedent you want sitting next to your own asset.

The Appian involvement itself is quietly huge. A $5bn fund doesn’t back juniors lightly, and the fact they not only sold the asset but took equity speaks volumes.

These funds don’t need to gamble. They look for teams they trust to execute. That endorsement alone rerates the credibility of Ajax, regardless of short-term share price movements.

Yes TB, I’ve seen that image doing the rounds. It’s not a company presentation as such, but someone’s clearly taken the stated metal endowment across the five projects and applied fairly standard recovery and margin assumptions to show potential scale. Directionally, I think it’s reasonable as a conceptual exercise.

The step down from ~$13.4bn in-situ to ~$10.8bn recoverable revenue makes sense, and the profit range being discussed is broadly consistent with typical early-stage modelling once you allow for recovery, payables and operating costs. The only minor inconsistency is that the graphic leans heavily on the ~$3.25bn number, whereas

that really sits toward the upper end of the assumed margin range rather than a base case.

That said, even the conservative end of the range is enormous relative to a ~£7m market cap. Obviously none of this is a valuation and there are plenty of hurdles still to clear, but it does highlight just how asymmetric the setup is if drilling and resource definition start to confirm the scale. The market’s basically pricing in very little chance of success at this stage.

This is a big moment for Ajax and one that really deserves attention. Drilling has officially started at the Eureka Gold and Copper Project in Jujuy, Argentina, and for context, this is a project with around 400 years of documented copper and gold production that has never been drill tested with modern methods. That alone puts Eureka in a very rare category.

The initial programme is fully funded, fully permitted and relatively tight at around 1,500 metres across roughly 10 diamond drill holes. The targets make a lot of sense technically. Ajax is testing a mix of shallow geochemical and IP anomalies alongside a deeper chargeability feature highlighted by SRK Consulting back in 2014, which could mark the transition into a sulphide-rich part of the system. In simple terms, this is exactly where you would want to be drilling first.

The drilling is happening close to Mina Eureka itself, the historic mine at the heart of the project. Despite centuries of production, no one has ever properly drilled beneath it. On top of that, surface work across the wider project area has already confirmed high-grade copper oxides, including historical samples up to 6.1% copper and plenty above 0.5% copper. Those are not marginal numbers and they strongly support the geological model being tested.

There is also a solid body of historical work that adds colour here. Minera Peñoles and Codelco both identified what appears to be a large copper system, and Mantos Blancos, now part of Anglo American, went as far as underground mapping and bulk sampling, declaring a historical, non-compliant gold resource of around 52,000 ounces. None of this can be treated as a modern resource, but it does explain why Eureka has remained on the radar of serious operators over the years.

Crucially, Ajax is doing this the right way. The programme is funded, focused, and being run with proper environmental, safety, and community standards in place. This isn’t promotional drilling, it’s a first proper test of a project that has all the hallmarks of something much bigger.

With initial assay results expected by the end of Q1 2026, the company has now moved from theory to execution. For shareholders, this is the point where a historically productive but underexplored asset starts to reveal what it can actually deliver.

Thanks for that tb500, it’s genuinely good analysis and it’s refreshing to see both the dialogue and the numbers handled with this level of care. The fact that the metal quantities have been traced back to individual RNS disclosures and then normalised using consistent spot pricing gives the whole exercise real credibility, especially compared with the usual headline figures that tend to circulate. It also makes it very clear just how dominant Eureka is within the portfolio, with copper doing the bulk of the heavy lifting and gold providing meaningful additional value rather than being used as superficial marketing gloss.

What also comes through strongly is how well balanced the wider asset base looks when it’s laid out this way. Eureka clearly anchors the overall picture, but the cumulative contribution from Paguanta, Leon and Raachite is far from insignificant, particularly given the mix of silver, zinc and lead alongside copper. Pereira-Velho may be smaller in absolute terms, but the gold ounces there are still material in aggregate and add genuine diversification rather than noise. When you step back and look at it holistically, the $13.4 billion figure feels less like a sensational headline and more like a reasonable illustration of scale grounded in disclosed data.

I think the way you’ve framed the conclusion is just as important as the numbers themselves. Being explicit that this is an in-ground gross metal estimate rather than any form of valuation keeps it intellectually honest. None of this ignores recovery rates, capital intensity, operating costs or development timelines, but it does underline how much underlying resource exists relative to the current market capitalisation. As a contextual benchmark it does exactly what it should, highlighting the long-term optionality embedded in the asset base without over-promising on outcomes. Q1 2026 feels like a particularly important period to start getting a clearer gauge of how far this stock can move northwards as results and progress begin to feed through.

Action starting now and mobilising a rig today with drilling due to start within days takes Eureka out of the realm of speculation and firmly into execution. A copper and gold system with a 400-year production history that has never seen a drill bit is rare in any jurisdiction, let alone one where surface work has already returned copper oxides up to 6.1% Cu. That kind of pedigree gives real substance to this programme before you even start thinking about what might be sitting beneath the surface.

The drill plan reads like it’s been put together by people who understand the system rather than by marketers. Shallow geochemical and IP anomalies are being tested alongside a deeper chargeability feature flagged by SRK back in 2014, which could represent a move into sulphide mineralisation below the oxide zone. That sort of vertical profile is where projects move from being small, shallow opportunities into something with real longevity. Drilling close to Mina Eureka itself, a mine that supported production for centuries without any modern exploration, only strengthens the logic behind the targets.

Gold is where things get particularly interesting given the current backdrop. With gold prices now sitting at all-time highs, even conservative historic numbers start to matter. The old non-JORC figure of around 52,000 ounces in basal conglomerates, taken at today’s prices, equates to well over $120 million in gross in-situ value, and that’s before factoring in the NI 43-101 suggestion that placer potential across the broader palaeochannel could be several times larger. On top of that, Ordovician quartz veins offer a separate hard-rock gold target that has barely been touched. The fact Codelco didn’t assess gold at all during their involvement leaves a clear gap in the historical work and a lot of upside that simply hasn’t been tested.

The red bed copper comparison to Corocoro shouldn’t be hyped, but it’s not something to dismiss either. Shared geological characteristics point to the possibility of a larger stratabound copper system, even if the end result turns out to be a fraction of that scale. This programme feels correctly sized to test those concepts properly rather than trying to force a narrative in the first few holes.

Timelines are refreshingly clear. Drilling is happening now, assays are expected by the end of Q1 2026, and there’s an explicit focus on environmental and community standards, which is increasingly important in Argentina. For Ajax this feels like a genuine turning point. Centuries of production history, strong surface grades, modern geophysics, record commodity prices, and finally a drill bit turning. Whatever the early results show, this is the work that will define the real value of Eureka, and it’s being approached with the right mix of ambition and discipline.

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/AJAX.PL/mobilisation-of-drilling-rig-to-eureka-project-uwueu6z4kvjjkuo.html

They know it all

Agreed, The updated voting rights confirm a tight share base at ~100.7m shares and, more importantly, show that a lot of stock is held by large individual shareholders, not just short-term traders. You’ve got directors and sizeable private holders sitting on meaningful percentages, which says a lot about conviction at this level.

That kind of register usually means less loose stock around and better alignment between management and shareholders. It also explains why supply can dry up quickly when sentiment turns.

A nice update that shows Ajax has a solid core shareholder base going into 2026. For me, that’s quietly bullish.

Today we have had a nice rise but dipped off with lots of volume one of the most for an aquis listed stock

I’ve said this plenty of times and the charts are lining up now. The 3-month view shows a long accumulation base around 4.3–4.6p, followed by a clean breakout into the 7.5–7.8p area. The pullback only went to the mid-5s and has held, which is textbook higher-low structure.

The 1-month chart shows consolidation above the old breakout zone with rising volume, not distribution. Today’s move fits that perfectly, push, dip, heavy volume, no breakdown.

Technically, a break and hold above 7.8–8p opens the door to 10p quickly. Once 10p goes, there’s very little historical resistance, and that’s when moves can extend fast. With the assets still to come in 2026, a 20–30p range is entirely possible once price escapes the long Aquis range.

Gold and silver hitting all time highs just ahead of 2026 really changes the picture for Ajax, and I do think an instant rerate next year is very realistic if the metals stay anywhere near current levels. Looking back through Ajax’s previous RNSs, the company is not short of real gold and silver exposure. This is not just conceptual upside. The portfolio includes the Eureka project in Argentina, an advanced gold and copper asset with extensive historic workings and defined targets. Alongside that sit the Minas La Escondida licences, which share the same geological setting and add further gold upside at district scale.

On the silver side, the optionality is even clearer. Ajax has exposure to the Leon project, where historic drilling pointed to around 44.7 million tonnes at 21.8 grams per tonne silver alongside copper mineralisation. While not yet JORC, figures like that matter much more when silver is trading at record highs. In addition, the Paguanta project in northern Chile already carries a JORC compliant mineral resource of approximately 6.8 million ounces of silver, together with zinc and lead, and the deposit remains open for expansion.

What stands out to me is how slowly the market adjusts to commodity price moves when it comes to juniors. Gold moving to new highs and silver breaking out is not just noise. It reflects a shift in rate expectations and currency dynamics that historically supports the sector for longer than people expect. Ajax is still being valued as though metals are average at best, despite having ounces in the ground that directly benefit from this price environment.

Higher metal prices do not remove execution risk or exploration risk, but they significantly improve the economics and optionality of assets that already exist. With 2026 approaching and another reporting cycle ahead, assets tend to be viewed very differently when metals are strong. Even without major new discoveries, existing resources and historic figures start to carry much more weight.

I am not expecting a perfectly smooth journey, this is still a small resources company and there will be the usual volatility. But at the current valuation, with gold and silver where they are now and with the level of exposure Ajax already has across its projects, the downside feels well understood while the upside is not. For me, that is why a sharp rerate in 2026 looks plausible rather than optimistic.

Hi Gusto, would you like to actually debate the stock here or just one word scaremongering gibberish?

Happy Christmas all. Was with the family today so a bit late on here, sometimes it feels like I’m posting to myself anyway. I added again last week and remain heavily held here.

Ajax still looks completely undervalued at these levels in my view. The recent retrace feels far more like positioning and patience than any reflection of weakening fundamentals. Markets are forward-looking and there’s a clear shift underway away from speculative narratives and back towards real assets. That’s reflected in multiple recent market narratives, with gold and silver reaching fresh highs for a second day running as investors gravitate toward safe-haven assets amid macro uncertainty and geopolitical tensions (CNBC). Over the past year, gold has hit record levels and is significantly outperforming many risk assets, underscoring where capital is rotating and why real-asset exposure matters, particularly in the precious metals space. While crypto hype has cooled and lost some of its luster with broader investors, gold’s appeal as a store of value has strengthened noticeably.

Eureka remains a superb asset and the value simply isn’t being shown yet. The scale, jurisdiction and optionality are there, but the market isn’t pricing them in at this stage, especially when you consider the backdrop of precious metals hitting all-time highs and continued safe-haven buying around the world, as highlighted by recent FT coverage of the rally in gold and silver prices (FT). If gold stays firm, or continues to grind higher as macro pressures build, the leverage here is obvious.

I’m comfortable with the idea that 2025 is about consolidation and set-up rather than fireworks. The value case feels much more like a 2026 story, when sentiment, funding and asset value start to align. For those prepared to sit through the noise, this phase looks far more like accumulation than distribution.

https://www.ft.com/content/99899de1-bb19-4a5b-8432-cbd8009c55e3

https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2025/dec/23/bitcoin-buzz-gone-investors-chose-real-gold-in-2025

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2025/12/23/gold-and-silver-reach-fresh-highs-for-second-day-running.html

Good find TB500. The move in gold the article highlights fits with a broader shift that’s been building for some time rather than a sudden reaction. Markets are increasingly positioned for lower US rates next year as inflation eases and the labour market cools. That matters for gold because falling or expected-to-fall real rates improve the relative appeal of non-yielding assets versus cash and bonds.

A softer dollar is reinforcing the move, drawing in international demand, while central banks continue to accumulate in the background. Add ongoing geopolitical and fiscal uncertainty and gold is being treated less as a short-term trade and more as a strategic store of value, which is typically when rallies have more staying power.

That backdrop is constructive for companies with real metal in the ground, not just financial exposure, and it’s directly relevant to Ajax Resources. Higher gold prices lift project economics, improve optionality and reduce the relative cost of capital, even if equity markets haven’t fully caught up yet.

I honestly can’t believe how low the current valuation is. With gold, silver and copper all trading near peak levels, the value being assigned to what we already have in the ground is tiny by comparison. That kind of disconnect usually doesn’t last forever, and if the macro picture stays supportive, the market should start correcting that gap into the new year.

Exactly devil

Ezhik what’s the lie about, enlighten us? You clearly have a vendetta against director.

That’s a reasonable concern, but I think that’s exactly why this deal works in Ajax’s favour. They’re not paying for those historical numbers, they’re being used as geological signposts rather than something to be priced in today. The optionality is the key point. With limited upfront dilution, a long runway tied to EIA approval, and full due-diligence protections, Ajax can properly test the geological thesis without stretching the balance sheet. If the data doesn’t stand up to modern scrutiny, they can walk away. If it does, they’ve secured access to a potentially large polymetallic system in a proven belt on very favourable terms.

Execution risk is part of any early-stage explorer, but Ajax already has an operational footprint in Jujuy through Eureka, which reduces jurisdictional and permitting friction. When you factor in the pace of recent asset acquisitions, this feels less like a single speculative punt and more like a deliberate portfolio build. The market still appears to be valuing Ajax largely on where it is today, rather than where this asset base could be heading into 2026 if even one of these projects delivers. With the share price already up around 11.9% this morning, I’d still expect further upside from here and see a move back towards the 8p+ area as a realistic outcome if momentum continues.

The pace of RNS announcements coming out of Ajax lately makes it increasingly clear that the company is acquiring some genuinely strong assets as it builds momentum going forward into 2026. The conditional agreement over the Rachaite Prospect is a good example of that approach: it secures exposure to a polymetallic system in Jujuy Province, within a recognised lead-zinc-silver belt, while keeping the company protected on the downside through a staged, option-based structure and a defined due diligence window.

What gives Rachaite added weight is the historical technical context. Previous drilling confirmed anomalous silver, lead and zinc mineralisation, and there is also evidence of gold mineralisation at shallow depth in one hole. While early stage and still requiring modern work to validate, it is clearly not a greenfield punt with no supporting data.

In terms of potential worth, the RNS references a historical estimate prepared in 1985 describing around 5 million tonnes of mineralised material at average grades of 0.7 percent lead, 1.5 percent zinc and 200 ppm silver. On that basis, the contained metal was estimated at roughly 35,000 tonnes of lead, 75,000 tonnes of zinc and approximately 32 million ounces of silver. Using the indicative long-term prices stated, that equates to a gross, highly conceptual in-situ contained metal figure of over 2.3 billion US dollars. That number is not an economic valuation and it predates modern reporting standards, but it does provide a useful sense of scale for what Ajax is trying to confirm and upgrade through systematic exploration.

Crucially, Ajax is not paying today for that theoretical value. The deal is structured to buy time and optionality: a modest initial consideration in shares, a purchase price only if the option is exercised after EIA approval, a manageable exploration spend spread over the term, and a 1 percent NSR that can be extinguished. That is exactly how early-stage assets with upside should be acquired, with the work programme and due diligence doing the heavy lifting before any major commitment.

If this combination of disciplined deal-making and steady project additions continues, Ajax heads into 2026 with a portfolio that is becoming deeper, more credible and increasingly leveraged to exploration success.

Good to see cash in the bank from the raise. We’ve had the usual small retrace afterwards, which is fairly typical, but I’d expect that to correct as we move into the first month of 2026 when people are back from holidays and liquidity improves. The underlying value should become clearer as that happens, particularly with the long-awaited JORC update due, which should finally give the market something concrete to work with.

Bloomberg had a good article on Argentina’s wine regions starting to accept copper mining. What stood out was how normalised the discussion has become. Areas that were effectively off limits to large-scale mining for years are now seeing serious capital engagement, local authorities participating, and financing being discussed in a measured way rather than as a speculative punt.

That says a lot about the copper market more broadly. Supply remains tight, project timelines are long, and the majors are being pushed into looking beyond the traditional jurisdictions. When regions previously seen as too difficult start moving up the list, it changes how risk is priced across the sector.

For smaller explorers, this shift matters. It highlights that copper doesn’t need hype to move forward. Gradual policy changes, steady capital commitment and acceptance that new supply has to come from somewhere are often the early signals. Developments like this tend to work through the market quietly before they show up in valuations, which is why context like this article is worth paying attention to.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-12-18/argentina-s-wine-country-warms-up-to-copper-mining?srnd=homepage-europe

They then go a step further and stress test the extremes. On the conservative side, if Eureka comes in at the very low end, nothing else progresses and there is zero exploration upside, Edison still struggle to get a valuation much below five pence a share. On the other end, if Eureka lands anywhere near the upper end of the Peñoles numbers and the additional assets deliver meaningful resource upgrades, their maximum scenario pushes north of a pound a share. I am not treating that as a target, but it is useful context for understanding how asymmetric this can become around drilling and resource declaration.

One useful way to frame this is to look at how the market has treated comparable stories. Guardian Metals and Amaroq are good examples in different ways. Guardian has been rewarded at times simply for positioning credible assets within a clear strategic metals narrative in a supportive jurisdiction, well before everything was fully defined. Amaroq has carried value on the back of scale, historic production and the expectation that compliant resources would eventually follow focused work programmes. In both cases the re rating did not wait for perfection, it waited for the first hard anchors the market could model around. That is what Edison is effectively pointing to with Ajax. The valuation gap is not about geology being uninteresting, it is about the market not yet being forced to anchor to a real resource number.

The bolt ons also make more sense viewed through this lens. La Escondida and La Norteña are clearly about consolidating the Eureka district rather than chasing random opportunities. Pereira Velho brings Appian onto the register, which Edison are pretty open about being unusual for a company of this size and potentially important longer term. Leon is structured so Ajax controls its exposure while retaining upside, and Paguanta already being JORC compliant gives them a different kind of optionality altogether.

Financially, Edison underline something Ajax has been saying all along. This is a lean setup. One salary, no flashy overhead, cash runway into late 2026 on their assumptions and a very clear value inflection point around the Eureka resource.

So for me the Edison report is not about convincing anyone Eureka is interesting. Most people here already know that. It is about showing, in black and white, how the current market cap only really prices in the worst case while leaving the base case and any upside largely ignored. The next twelve months decide which end of that range this actually deserves to sit in.

Just went through the Edison note properly rather than just skimming the headline numbers and it is probably the most coherent external write up we have had on Ajax so far. It basically tracks the RNS flow from February onwards and then puts some discipline around it rather than inventing a new story.

Eureka is still the centre of gravity and Edison treat the Jujuy EIS approval exactly how the market should. That December RNS was the switch from talk to execution. Once permitting is in place, the project stops being about historic papers and starts being about drill results. The planned 1,500m initial programme followed by a larger phase is clearly aimed at forcing a maiden JORC resource in H1 next year. That is the first real valuation anchor point, because right now everything sits in ranges.

On the historical side, Edison are very explicit about the source of the numbers. Codelco and Peñoles are not fringe operators and the fact they independently came up with resource and exploration potential estimates is why Edison are prepared to use them as a valuation framework rather than dismissing them as noise. Depending on which end of that spectrum you land, Edison put the in situ value of Eureka anywhere from low single digit millions of dollars up to north of forty million before any blue sky. Their weighted average for Eureka alone comes out around twenty one million dollars, which on a fully diluted basis is roughly fifteen pence a share, before you even factor in cash or any other assets.

That is where the current price starts to look odd, because Edison then layer in the balance sheet. Post fundraising they estimate around two point six million pounds of cash, which pushes the implied value of Eureka plus cash closer to eighteen pence a share on their numbers. That is still without Pereira Velho, Leon or Paguanta being counted for anything meaningful.

Where it gets interesting, and where I think a lot of people have not joined the dots, is the upside Edison explicitly label as upside rather than forecast. The La Norteña alluvial gold angle from the August RNS is a good example. Edison are careful not to bake it in, but they do the maths. At just one hundred and fifty ounces a month, you are talking roughly five point eight million dollars of annual revenue at current gold prices, net to Ajax after the profit share. Even if reality ends up a fraction of that, it is still material for a company of this size and completely changes the conversation around funding and dilution if it comes off.

When Edison step back and do a sum of the parts including the other assets, the numbers start to stack. Using their base case approach, they value Pereira Velho at around two point six million dollars, Leon at just over three million and Paguanta at just under six million attributable. Add those to Eureka and cash and they get to a mean valuation of about twenty five pence a share assuming the transactions complete broadly as outlined.

Good to see the exposure from the Edison report announced in the latest RNS. Lord Ashbourne’s write-up is a clear, no-nonsense read and works well as an introduction for anyone new to the story. It explains what Ajax is trying to do without overcomplicating it, which feels appropriate at this stage.

What comes across strongly is how quickly the company has moved since leaving the Main Market SPAC structure. Rather than drifting and burning cash, they’ve gone straight into building a natural resources portfolio, targeting orphaned assets that larger players have passed over. That focus and pace are encouraging.

Eureka is clearly the centrepiece for now, and it’s worth noting for newer investors that the project has never been subject to modern drilling, despite historic estimates from Codelco and Peñoles pointing to potentially meaningful copper. Those numbers aren’t JORC compliant, but they do help explain why management see scope for a re-rating once proper work is done. Doubling the land package to 14,000 hectares around the core asset also looks sensible if the geology supports it.

The plan to drill and aim for a JORC resource in the first half of 2026 feels like a defined milestone rather than a vague long-term goal. At the same time, the additional assets in Brazil, Argentina and Chile suggest the company isn’t relying on a single project, while still sticking to regions and commodities it understands.

Overall, the report makes Ajax look like a well-structured early-stage opportunity with a clear strategy and timelines, particularly for those not yet invested. It’s still early days, but it’s reassuring to see the story independently assessed rather than only coming through company announcements.

It’s also worth linking this back to yesterday’s RNS, which may have been missed. Various geological consultants, investor relations advisers, introducers and two directors who are remunerated solely in equity agreed to settle £110,195 of fees through shares rather than cash. When geologists are willing to take equity instead of payment, it suggests a level of confidence in the asset and that they see value beyond where the market currently prices it.

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/AJAX.PL/publication-of-research-f0iwvhub3oa4jna.html

https://www.edisongroup.com/research/second-only-to-achilles/BM-2321/