Member Info for Toby1967

Trippy just because somebody is an informative poster just because somebody questions a post with justification does not make them disruptive

If you dont agree or like my posts green bin me which seems to be the standard thing to do for disruptive posters like my self or put forward a reply which supports the original comment to tell me why i am wrong

Nobody seems to have done that so i conclude my comments were reasonable and not disruptive

E1

i do not dispute the points your making and agree with a lot of it and where the company will end up and i think my original point has been lost

Lets leave it there and i hope you can see and agree with the point i wanted to get across that profit and cash flow are not comparable

Mh01

Sorry my mail was not a dig at e1 it was simply asking him to explain difference between profit and cash flow and comparing one to the other is not a fair analysis or do you not agree with my originbal point and e1 was correct

i assume your comment is aimed at my point about profit and if i have understood your past posts you are or were an accountant so i suspect you have already done your own

based on guidance provided worse case is 260000 oz production

Using last quarter average gold price in round of 5000 numbers and AISC OF 2800 you arrive at a net cash flow of by my calculation you arrive at a figure of AU572M less guided Capex at top end of AUD390M you arrive at a profit figure of AUD182M

This is a similar multiple to evolution $1b profit 16.5bn market cap by my calculation

Just because i dont post on a regular basis as i see it mainly as an amusing read it does not mean i do not research as you put it or understand the industry but when i see posts which are written to mislead as i felt e1's original mail was i will comment

You and others are good at calling out people like myself who infrequently post but seem unable like i have today disagree with the hard core club who want to dominate this board when they post misleading information

Trippy

if that is a comment aimed at my mail sorry what is not possible

E1

whilst with only 7 month trading we do not have a full year to compare that point is correct but my original point and i will make it again to flatter your original point you are comparing Evolutions underlying profit to your estimated free cash flow for GGP which is wide enough to drive a bus through which is not a reasonable comparison

My point was and still is you could and should have used Evolutions free cash flow

You also made the point the free cash flow you calculate is being reinvested in Hav and the fact is it is not until a DFS and decision to proceed with the project is taken although the BOD have committed to spend upto AUD70M in FY26 in preparation

In your reply you seem unable to acknowledge the difference between profit and cash flow and then expand on what it is being spent on to justify your point

for those of us who have read the RNS we know what the BOD are planning to spend the allocated capex on and can also estimate a profit figure based on the revised guidance which is a worse case is below AUD200M so using the Evolution figures you quote our current market cap is comparable in terms of PE

for what it is worth i am not trying to pick an argument with you but when you attempt to do a comparison with others using incorrect data i and i would hope others will point it out

I do think the company is worth more and like many I am seriously annoyed at the huge loss recently but until the DFS i think the recovery is going to be long and painfull

E1

Again you cannot compare underlying profit to free cash flow they are 2 different things

Evolution produce approx 2 times gold we do with a lower AISC and quote a mine operating cash flow of $1541m

GGP did report a profit at half year and will again at full year

Like too many of your posts you do not compare like for like as I say good fiction but not accurate

E1

To say your post of 3.08 is misleading is an understatement

For those who have recommended your post can you please explain the difference between underlying profit you state for Evolution and Free cash flow your quote for GGP

Can you also detail of the $600-900m figure you quote for GGP has actually been reinvested in Hav over the last 7 months

Good piece of fiction as always but short on reality

Correction should read mid July

Speedy

good points but can i ask why you believe the shorts have the upper hand

Looking at the latest ASIC report which details short positions for all Australian companies and lag by 4 days latest report indicates a short position of 0.67% for GGP (it was as high as 0.86% mid June and dropped below 0.6% when quarter results were issued) and is comparable to Northern Star and Genesis is 5.28% which are given for comparison is same segment as we are

Maybe you have access to other figures which indicate a higher position to what ASIC are detailing

Zoros

I did read your mail which appears to contradict in part the guidance offered in the RNS but your question if i understood it was specific to Telfer and what i am quoting is total expenses which also covers exploration and Hav which is money going out of the company

The $250m is close to top end of given Telfer growth but in the detail they include the drilling which i believe is covered in the exploration costs of 55-60m so i suspect this was an oversight on their part in their reply or the sum detailed for Exploration in the RNS EXCLUDED Telfer growth drilling which was included as they suggest in the Telfer costs in their reply

The AUD390M i quote is as detailed in the RNS and i suspect has not yet been revised downwards to the figure quoted to you which i believe has not considered exploration or Hav but both of these expenses will impact on the cash generated in FY26

the main point i was trying to make in my reply to Rotherby is you need to consider the Cap Ex (regardless of getting benefit from the expense going forward) as well as other expenses to arrive at what you are actually making but some of the replies i assume are aimed at my mail have mis understood the point i was trying to make

by the way thanks for actually posting the reply you received and i hope you can follow my point which is things are not as simple as gold price less AISC equals free cash in the bank at year end

Mh

Read the RNS which details as follows

Telfer Growth 230-260m

exploration 55-60m

Hav 60-70m

Add top of guidance you arrive at 390m of total capital expenses for FY26

At low end of gold guidance of 260000ozs i make that equivalent to 1500 per oz

Rotherby

Re your message of 12.12 whilst the point you make is valid something everybody seems to be overlooking is the 3 or 4 times jump in expenses the market was not expecting

at the top end of the guidance adding all together it amounts to AUD390M which at the low end of gold guidance is equivalent to AUD1500 per Oz or put it another way an equivalent AISC of AUD4300 per Oz

whist i fully understand the need to spend money to prolong the life of Telfer it was far higher than the market expected and i dont think people have fully

grasped this as i still see people quoting us as having AUD1B in cash in a couple of quarters unless they. smash the lower guinance which in itself will be equally as damaging in my view

Maybe the 800m E1 is suggesting from the rumoured hatchet job is not actually that far off over next 3 or 4 years for Telfer particular if they go ahead with the WDD development

My own view and i am not alone in this thought is the down grade was mainly down to the drop in guidance and increase in capital spend which i think is confirmed by the questions asked of the company by ASIC/ASX

I do hope this is the only bomb shell to drop this year and the Hav DFS comes in where we all expect

Speedy

That works

E1

Maybe correct your second paragraph if you want people to believe the rest

We are producing less than a tonne per month

Jiffy

a few basic checks will tell you the morning star share holding list is way out and cannot be trusted

According to them Firetrail own 22.61% but the companies own website lists their holding as only 4.86% and the other listed major share holder Wyloo, Newmount and Tembo own Approx 24% between them and are not included unless held under a different name in Australia

If you add in UK shares held on most of our behalf's HL,II, A J Bell , Halifax etc which i still believe are in the 20 to 30% range the top 20 as claimed by morning star cannot hold 92.6% of the company even overlooking UK holders if my estimate is well out

As somebody has already pointed out take the figures with a pinch of salt as some sources are still quoting pre consolidation numbers so will be out by 20

Markets tend to look forwards rather than backward and the $575m cash does include cash from 2 share raises and tax credits and not all profit from production

With the down grade for FY26 after achieving low end of guidance only issued a few months ago and also guiding Capex including exploration of AUD390m which I think most accept is higher than expected which equates to Aud1500 per oz at low end guidance ie reduced profit for FY26

Without seeing the detail of the 800m increase and given the guidance for FY26 as above is it actually that far fetched

Where was the due diligence they should have carried out in stockpiles prior to purchase and why leave it till results to announce

The fall should be no surprise and it is A 40% increase back to where we were prior to results

TT

I did not miss that is was really about Hav but if they are issuing an update dated August and indicate a share price from the previous month and do not update their company projections based on update figures then i ask myself how credible the whole article can be as i would question if they still see their share price prediction as still valid

I did read it but i think best wait for the company RNS on the subject as costs and assumptions are likely to be far more accurate

Whilst dated August 2025 it has clearly not been updated for the recent results and is still using old numbers for gold production, AISC and capex

If you run on a worst case of 260kozs , AISC $2800 AND $390M total capex and expenses all as stated and using AUD5000 for net gold price you arrive at a net profit figure of $182m so for those who like to do their PE multiples this would put the company on approx 20 times forward earnings which is about where we are

This is what i think spooked the market not some adverse note or short position which is way below similar companies on the ASX which did not see their

shares plunge by 25 odd %

Lets wait for an updated Argonaut note which reflects the company guidance

for what is worth I do expect the company to exceed even the top end of the guidance but i do feel the companies credability has been dented with the down grade and claim it is conservative and if we do announce above guidance results i doubt the share price will rebound as quickly as it fell

still happy with my investment but like many i am sure not happy with the downgrade so quickly after the prospectus

DG

Thanks for the reply

they will not mill the waste they strip only the ore mined and what is taken from the stock pile so as i originally posted figures do not seem to tally

Maybe this has already been covered but i have only just had time to look in detail at the recent results

They milled a total tonnage of 4,917kt

From the pit they mined 1,566kt of ore and 298kt from underground

The ROM stockpile decreased by 2,200kt

by my calculation this leaves a difference of 853kt which does not appear to be accounted for in either milled ore or stockpile reduction

Can anybody offer an explanation or am i missing something