Member Info for wasarunner

>>Nor do you its a runner so we're all in the same boat there imo.

Your comment is 100% true. However, I have made a determination not to believe anything the company or the CEO says. So they could be paying their contractors or not paying their contractors but if the company says it is paying the contractors I'll not believe it. You can scroll back through the last 4 years of history of what they said, and then what happened, and you'll find a 99% success rate of the 'what they said wasn't what happened' and therefore statistically speaking, this is a valid assumption. Starting with the 'we are aiming for 50koz of production this year' back in year x which was one of many manifest lies (endorsed by the nomad and the brokers).

>>They will have been close to cashlses as the turn of the year and yet they managed to get right through to June without any raise, that's light and day.

You have no idea of the debt position, none. You don't know how many of their contracts aren't getting paid. You don't know if they're paying whatever they have to pay Ghana for the licence. That's the problem. And I also don't trust the accounts. The people closer to what's really going on, like Nguvu, like Paracle, will know the real situation. They didn't put money in? Why not? Why aren't they buying at 0.55p? (it could just be they'll get them cheaper in a placing of course)

No I got out on day 1 because I don't trust any of them. I do believe it's a game and I do believe it will go private. And I don't think any of the major players get on - that's apparent from the lack of proper financing (and the fact one of the financiers exited at loss). I think it's going private and there will be much pain. And I don't short so that's the general direction that probably makes money on aim.

It doesn't make money. Its major shareholders aren't supportive. The creditor has them by the curlies so it will be difficult for anyone else to put in and they'll want it super cheap. That's my summary. The shareprice is an accurate reflection of the companies position. All IMHO

Still don't get why anyone is surprised by any of it. It's there in plain sight how can you put it differently: the company doesn't, and has never yet, made enough to cover their bills (until and unless they announce something different, which, to date, they haven't). So, they need cash. That their main shareholders didn't put any in in the last 2 rounds (Nguvu, Paracle, AIMS eventually came in with a small lump after the initial raise to keep the lights on) should be a huge concern. They raised some funds from miscellaneous 'investors' (read, money go round with fees) to make it look hunky dory at 1p nothing to see here.

But the question always remained - how will they keep sourcing funding if they're not producing? AIMS can sell their interest shares if they want - it suits them. Lowers the share price for the next interest fee conversion and they take more of the company. The people who participated in the raise can sell their shares, they probably got fees. Bluegold definitely sold their shares. Paracle and Nguvu could be selling shares, you'd never know because it isn't transparent. They certainly weren't buying shares, at least in the placing.

So, mostly selling, with PIs buying. Once PIs stop buying, who's buying? If nobody, the share price will fall if any major seller is selling. Which I believe is what's happening. But the underlying cause is the companies cash position and lack of ability to get to a breakeven state and that's been there in plain sight for the last 1 year, at least. All IMHO

Because he (and I) lost money. Because the company lied, the CEO lied, and the nomad does nothing (I tried to contact them, they don't even respond). The lies in the last 6-12 months have enabled placings at 1p to be sold into the market (if you don't think those are selling, open your eyes). And raised enough funds to keep the lies going.

Time is running out. If it was going to be solvent the share price would be higher because those selling (and it isn't PI selling) wouldn't be selling. They would know what is being produced and what the company cash position is. The first clue was the failed placing (raising £650k when mooting £1.9m is a failed placing). The second clue was the unsecured creditor exiting stage left (at a big loss, rather than waiting it out or renegotiating). The third clue is that 0 production promises can and have been delivered to date.

What I want to know is when it goes in this direction where are the guys who shout down all the so called 'naysayers'. Where's geezer? Has he sold out? Or is he 'buying the dips'? Like - we can all get it wrong, 'Burt' and I both did and we admitted it. For me it was a super expensive mistake not just on this stock but others. But you have to have your eyes open what the company says, and what's really going on, are two very different things. AIM is essentially unregulated and PIs are there for the taking. Unfortunately the ones who lose the most are those who 'believe' till the end, it's going to come good. The nifty traders take their 20% hit (win or lose) and move on to the next scalp. And so the casino continues....

Yes and fingers crossed it works out - for the company, Emma, investors. The high gold price and increased production figures, if they can be maintained, should, on paper, get the company to where it needs to go. That's what investors coming to the table now will be looking at. I'd be wary of the politics and of the seller, that's all. Time will tell.

Yes maybe, but they still hold the cards. Goldstone can't have the same discussion with AIML as they did with BlueGold if the asset is secured against that loan. So if Goldstone can't pay, come December, then it's up to AIML? What you're suggesting perhaps is by December 25 Goldstone will be high and dry with lots of cash to pay this back. That might be the case (and for investors here obviously that would be super good) but that was almost always the position in the entire time here, 3yrs+ I was invested - the gold loan amount was relatively small compared to any reasonable production forecast yet the company failed to achieve it, while racking up additional debt (in the form of, for example,the bluegold loan). Yes maybe this time it's different. Time will tell. In the meantime the shareprice should be a worry I still think. Someone with a lot of shares is selling, who, and why?

>> as tis the actual accuracy.

By which I mean, the auditor resigned and the company suspended. Make of that what you will.

Ok so this was in a much earlier RNS, I didn't go back that far:

Post Period Developments

On 3 January 2024, the Company announced a Standstill Agreement with AIMSL in respect of its gold loan agreement to 29 June 2024, which was subsequently extended to 31 December 2025.

So there you have your date at which AIMS will roll it again (or not) or Goldstone will pay them back (or not).

The accounting definition for going concern is of course valid but the balance sheet here to a large extent is made up. Assets vastly exceed liabilities is great, but great companies with lots of assets still go down because of cashflow. That's especially true of miners. If assets were great then assets could have been used to pay Bluegold. But they couldn't? No because the assets were underground.

Obviously the way this becomes a good investment is the 'assets' emerge from underground and are sold for $. At least on that I expect most on the board would agree! It's Emma's job to make that happen. Yes the account trailing the actual periods they report on is a real pain with these companies, as tis the actual accuracy.

Not the (technical) definition in accounting but a company which is a going concern can meet it's debt obligations. Goldstone, to date, can't :- it couldn't pay out what it owed BlueGold (and the fact they didn't roll the loan over means they were not convinced it ever would), it can't pay the directors salary in $, it has to pay in shares, and it paid some random other supplier in shares too. A company which is a going concern pays it's $ liabilities in $, not shares.

I'd say it's a going concern when it doesn't have to come back to shareholders or 'institutional investors' cap in hand for another round of cash, to pay current liabilities. Expanding operations/developing Akrokeri is a different thing but Goldstone have been raising money to stay afloat. And it can pay people in $ what it owes in $. It's exactly as SonOfABoo says, without accounts (you can trust) you don't know. You don't know if current liabilities are £5m, £10m, £20m. No idea how much money they've spent, what they owe to who which couldn't be covered by cashflow.

>>I also don't think it's that simple for any creditor to just take an asset, simply when they think the going is good and waiting it out?

That's a fair comment and only the detail behind the terms of the gold loan would tell you how hard or easy that is for them. And here's a surprise that information isn't published anywhere (I can't even find the latest postponement date). Someone should ask Emma what the terms are on the next investor call if there is one. And that's what's opaque about AIM. I do think having the asset as security, for a major shareholder who also holds the bond is, well, they hold all the cards. Whoever is selling could be selling for a reason other than AIMS hold all the cards, but theoretically if the company is going to produce gold at these prices and increase production they shouldn't be selling, and the shareprice should be rising. That it isn't should be a worry I think. I might be putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5 though (I've done that before). If it was a really good buy at 1p then Nguvu and Paracle (with all their knowledge of what's really going on on the ground) should be buying every sell. But they're not. Possibly the opposite (we don't know).

Fwiw I think it's the politics (and nobody really understands that unless you sit in the boardroom with them) and not the fundamentals or the location of the mine or even the competence that's the risk. Maybe the competence at some point wasn't there but now its risky because of where the PI ranks in the equation. Awful lot of trust in these people to put your money in there... it could be a good investement case of course. But is it. Only time will tell.

One thing that's undisputable is somebody is selling at 1p, and that body has a large amount of shares to sell. Otherwise the shareprice should be rising in a rising gold market when the company itself is relatively bullish in its updates, no? You can explain that selling to a point and beyond that point it becomes 'orderly exit' per the below. At some point they will have to publish accounts, of course, accounts can be presented in 'different' ways, then something closer to the truth emerges but it may not be the absolute truth. Ever was it thus. And yeah I lost a load of money here and yeah, I'm pretty bitter about it :) if it works for holders then good job.

Geezer seems upset because the shareprice isn't doing what he'd like. More opportunity to top up surely? I think AIMS doesn't take it until it can work profitably, until then, it's effectively a risk off loan secured against the asset. Bluegold couldn't do that because their loan was unsecured. Wonder how that negotiation went when the term was up 'we'd like our money' goldsone 'tough you can't have it, we haven't got it' them 'ok we'll convert our shares then as long as you guarantee us an orderly exit' AIMS 'ok then'. I'm surmising of course. But off they went and they made no money on their loan.

Yeah I don't trust any of them at all. I suspect Emma is perhaps the most honest but BT, Angela List give me a break these guys are wealthy for a reason and it's not for helping PIs out. But in case it's just me saying that the auditor resigned. That's usually a really bad sign. It was suspended for nearly forever. It did look like curtains.

It's a super risky investment, probably not because there isn't gold there that could be mined profitably, but at least because it's a super shark eat shark landscape in the corporate setup and PIs rank below minnow in that equation. By the time you find out what's going on it's over. Again all IMHO and I hope Geezer is right and it goes to the moon.

The way I see it AIMS will at some point have two options: Own something like 29% of a breaking even/profitable mine with £10-15-20m debt (pick a number, who knows what it is) or, 100% of a breaking even/profitable mine with £0m debt. Because they have the asset secured against their loan. Everyone else at that point gets wiped or maybe they make a courtesy offer to shareholders but maybe not, why should they. Owning the debt, having it secured against the asset, and being a major shareholder they pretty much own everything, which is why the others are selling. All IMHO.

AIMS varied the terms of the loan because there was no working mine and essentially the company was insolvent. It worked, others invested (someone put in £1m at 11p) and the bluegold investment. Now bluegold have sold (at a loss) why? Surely because when the asset is profitable, AIMS will take the project. Almost certainly knowing this, the other stakeholders in the know are selling, and PIs are buying their sells. Orderly exit before it goes private.

Scrolling back through the RNS' I can't even find the latest 'terms' of the gold loan? When is the repayment date - normally these things aren't open ended or the company never has to repay it? I know they recently converted some accrued interest to shares but when is the actual principal to be paid back?

With respect to the overhang - it's impossible for bluegold to sell that size of holding in one tranche on the open market, so somebody /broker obviously took it and is selling it piecemeal. Who knows how many they have left.

I just don't think it's going to end well here. Just when you think you've got a bargain and the shareprice is turning etc etc. If I'm wrong then there's loads to be made from this point clearly. I just don't buy it. AIM itself is hugely corrupt with no oversight so - all is almost certainly not as it seems and the sp is telling you a more realistic story. All IMHO but the counterargument is worth considering.

Do you mean most likely not least likely?

I don't know why shareholders would get anything. If the company goes kaputt even the debt (so for e.g. bluegold) would rank above equity. They clearly decided that wasn't worth the gamble so decided whatever pence/sh they could get back for their debt was better. Time will tell. Assuming thr company nit hitting it's production target is the problem for the sp is risky though imo.

I did wonder that it was the bit I couldn't figure out. But if it goes private and they remain in post it all of a sudden works. Lot more money to be made in a private profitable company. A d thrn I saw it happen on aim, management buy outs etc etc where all of a sudden pi's lost but the management took the company. I'm not saying that will happen here but it's one permutation.

Reality is you don't have regulation and you don't have oversight so you don't know. And that's why the sp is way below what it sould be if everything being presented was as it was!

Yeah which is why you habe to watch when the company becomes solvent because it's the critical juncture. If it remains solvent, goes profitable, pi's make money I was wrong. If at the point that would ha e happened and pi's lose everything, I was right. That's thr gamble I couldn't take with my remaining holding or ehat was left of it. I don't mind posting it here because I see lots of bull case being costed but as an investor I found to my cost you have to see the bear case.

And don't trust the ceo, nomad or aim to make it right. They're not working for pi's, most often.