Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the video here.
Tough call, on the one hand Watcher, it does feel like your trying to push an agenda on a group which feel its totally unrelated to the point and purpose of this board (maybe ironically doing what you dislike aka trying to force others to think like you), while on the hand, I do believe you believe all of the stuff you post and thus, as it would affect financial markets if it was/came true that is the connecting dot to here and GCAT I guess, in the sense that an investmemt here might get affected, for better or worse.
Your opinion is as valid as anyone elses right, although every action has a re-action and from previous posts I do recall you weren't happy with how the world/people you had met treated you because of your views, but its possible its because you were trying to force them unto a group who weren't interested is it not? If you give it, your going to have to take it comes to mind. If you stopped posting unrelated stuff, maybe you would get less stick?
I think generally, it would appear that posters on here would prefer to stick to stuff more directly related to GCAT, but just like those witnesses that knock on your door, you can't stop others from pushing what they want to push and instead of different parties knocking each other, would it not be more sensible to leave Watcher be and just ignore the off topic rant posts completely until they realise no one is interested in that part. That way Watcher gets to vent freely and get things of their chest and everyone else gets to carry on discussing real GCAT stuff?
@Legal,
Indeed I do agree in that a part of the low SP is due to the CEO's previous mistakes. I don't think we could claim all of the drop is purely that, as the wider market also comes into play with small caps imo. Unless transformational news dropped, most have suffered a retrace above 50% from 2021 ish price, with many at 75% plus, but I think that the word has less trust to it now, and thus, until the news actually lands there is always a pinch of salt to the "coming soon" talk.
But my wider point to yourself was more, at what point do you move on from the past and decide you can now trust his word? And is that even possible for you? If not, given the importance placed on trust by yourself, is GCAT ever going to be investible for you and if so, what would need to happen to make it so?
@LW. Aren't all investments into mining small caps into the CEO's ability in main? I can't think of one mining small cap where the assest would ensure the company stays afloat or suceeds if the CEO wasn't capable.
It's by and large how one small cap picks up another small caps assets on the cheap i.e., buys a plot with potential million plus Oz off another company for under a 100k. If it was only ever the asset which counted, those deals wouldn't happen. They happen due to one CEO not being able for one reason or another to make a success of their project.
Now I get that is your point, in that with GCAT its success or failure will be down to Robbie. But the manner of your post does read as though that is some sort of exception to the norm, like it's a negative, when in fact it is the norm and business as usual.
Naturally, if you don't believe a CEO can or will take your company to greatness, then why would you invest? I can't see any senerio where an investor would say, "this CEO should ruin the company and take it into admin so let me whack a load of my well earnt cash into it".
That leads on to my next question, if you don't believe and don't want to invest, what would some one want out of GCAT? CEO change first? List of actions done to restore faith in CEO?
I'm not fully convinced all investors want to see it, but do agree that for large investors and funders its key. PR and presenting the right corporate apperance is vital to larger institusions, even if the truth is usually mis-placed somewhat or greenwashed.
Personally I'd much rather GCAT had and did decent ESG work than didn't. It might not much fun or SP raising news, but it is a vital piece in the puzzle of any company these days.
A step in the right direction to me.
@LW,
I prob didn't write it clearly over you not understanding it.
My attempted point was in the past, evidence would suggest RM lied to us shareholders, which was a mistake imo. I've mentioned this before on here, however, I don't have to trust fully my CEO to be fine holding a stock. I buy stocks with one aim, to make money. A used car salesman can lie all day long but often due to the gift of the gab will make more money than an honest salesman.
I genuinely think most CEOs lie, just some pull it off better than others, however, I also understand that for some, they need to feel 100% trust in their CEO to be invested. Now I can't see how RM could ever win that back so maybe they are just like Scully from the X files, in that they want to believe, so hang on in, I dont know.
So in terms of the future, yes, I do think there is more to look forward to than not. Will RM lie again? If he needs to, then I think he would, but that doesn't mean the future can't be bright.
And that's my point . RM can learn that lieing has had a negative effect on the SP and thus try to be more upfront with shareholders about the good, bad and ugly, but also still hide the ugly at times and still make the company do well.
The April presentation showed they hadn't fully changed there spots. But for the CEO is it not a balancing act of trying to keep interest in the company going while trying to get there.
Aka Fake it till you make it.
And as long as they make it. Hand on heart I don't care.
Moving away from the name calling, I personally enjoy seeing the tweets. I def don't base my investment decisions on them, as they aren't ever really that fundemental to me, but all the same, I still like to see things. Who fixed the mill and how many hours they worked over a weekend doesn't change anything as such, but again, having been in radio silence companies, I prefer one which puts something out there.
My own rule of thumb is if it aint in an RNS its not mega news. Same applies for interviews. I pinch of salt them. Even RNS's can be iffy as all it takes is some added small wording and it becomes a "potential" RNS detail over a "confirmed" one.
Maybe against the grain here but the OCIM funding thing, I'm not overly sure how much RM did wrong? I'm fairly certain the original RNS stated it was conditional and having been in other companies where funding had conditions, there CEOs all dealt with the news like RM did. I don't feel mislead at all on that issue.
Where RM did mislead for me was not telling us about those June ish CLNs. That was really poor play imo. The fact we couldn't pay them back and will cost us a decent amount to pay back means for me, RM really should have reported that to the market.
Likewise, carrying on the 24k spin right up until near the end of Nov ish was poor play. To have hit that 2k per month target they would have had to have nearly finished all the required work, but they had been on hold for months, so doing interviews as RM did, still pushing the were on course line was a clear lie to us.
Thats in the past though and that cant be changed. The main question then going forwars is have they learnt from that? Have those mistakes been amended so that they aren't repeated and in that sense the company has improved and has a brighter future? For me, I'd say 75% learn't, so not to bad, but some room for improvement still.
The April presentation showing funding drawn down, 24k capacity hit, vim rutha MRE, Tanz MRE, Killi MRE upgrade but dec this year, was still a bit GCAT of old as to hit all that they needed funding in and they must have known it would take time.
Minus that though, the rest seems a lot better to me and those targets haven't really changed, just the timeline has.
Delays in mining happen. Almost every mining company Ive ever owned over the years had its delays and issues at points.
For me, the future still looks promising. More hurdles to come, but thats to be expected.
When it comes to what a trade shows as, it is just how LSE reports stuff. The system isn't trying to make you think anything and its nothing to do with Market Makers.
ALL trades are both a buy and a sell as you can't do either without the other.
If you have lvl 2 you will know what I mean when I say trades arent reported like LSE or most places show them. To simplify, picture it like they go into a big pot. Then they get matched to someone else who wants.
LSE uses a mid price between the buy and sell (bid, ask etc). If the trade falls towards one side more it reports it as that, but truth is, its just a best guess way of trying to show the momentum.
Buys and sells on LSE and elsewhere are just an algo, thats all.
So if your buy shows as a sell or your sell shows as a buy, its not some trick.
I might not have explained to well, but hopefully that made some sense. Im sure others can put it better.
Dale, this forum isn't here to cheer up employees. I don't own any stocks to cheer up employees either and I suspect they don't look to me or expect me to cheer them up either.
Its the companies job to manage its staff in all the ways a company should, be that salary wise and motivation wise.
Having worked at large shareholder owned companies myself in the past, I can honestly say what people posted on the LSE BB about those companies made zero difference to me. What made a difference having leadership that invested into me, bonuses, pay rises, collegues who I got along with.
This place is to discuss point of views, not GCATs HR team.
In many ways I have to agree with Bebeto in that there are some who simply can't ever hear a bad word about a company they own. I'm not looking at anyone in particular, that isn't just this share either, its a general theme on all boards and epidemic on Tele groups.
Equally though, there are some who can't ever hear a positive, so its very much a swings and roundabouts thing to me. Half full or half empty.
I've seen posters since over 1p run down anyone who spots a concern and still do, yet those doomsdayers were right. They might have been a de ramper or they simply saw the wood through the trees, who knows. Broken clocks and all that.
The point I am getting at is this place, like all places are opinion boards and having both sides is what makes them useful learning environments, echo chambers are the worst and most dangerous environment for holders imo. The constant battle between those who believe and those who don't provides moments of clarity etc and knowledge sharing, it allows you to look into both sides yourself and find out a little more.
Sadly imo we have moved into an era of cancel culture, where only the majoritys point of views are allowed. It gives a lovely warm feeling to know you think as everyone else around you does, but as seen by the SP drop, didn't help one bit.
So yes, there are some who are over positive (good on them) and some who are over negative (good on them too), but I for one am thankful for that.
I agree the SP tank has been aweful, but so has wider market conditions for many, both aim and main listed.
It's easy to not zoom out.
Many ftse mid caps and aim small caps have suffered since the bear market started. Just look at the likes of On The Beach. 500 plus down to 90ish.
That doesn't make things better here, but its worth remembering too.
@Beev,
I think he has only answered it in part, however that part is likely all they can answer up to.
He has answered what's going on and why. Which I've no doubt most already suspected to be the case (regs stopped original plan). It's good to have that confirmed.
I think the answer most wanted however was "what happens next", as in which of the 3 options are the company going to pick.
Problem is, they can't answer what they don't know yet. Their statement that they have spenr their time focusing on Mozam and Sunni, feels very plauisble and factual to me.
Yes the next steps for TSG and TGR's relationship are important but I don't see how they can answer that until they know themselves.
Its an important deal in terms of future financials as TSG does and can buy our product cheaper than market rate due to the cross over between ownerships. TGR don't want to become the feeder company for a different venture without getting back decent margins, but equally, I think it would be foolish to think merging/buying into TSG won't come at its own cost and I dont just mean the transcation cost. Equally, TGR doesn't want to become liable to any operating losses TSG might inccur during earlier stages of product development.
Fine lines.
Hi Char, RM is no longer a major shareholder as he transfered over his as part of a CLN deal earlier in the year I believe.
The company have said at some point they are going to issue the same amount back to him, so he won't have lost out, but as it stands today, he wouldn't be diluted.
Perhaps Bebeto, but we will never know as they came in, gave a few cryptic posts about what might be or might not be, about some newsreels but no newsreels and then left as they have no interest in this share, just like a shaddow, sometimes you see them, sometimes you don't.
They say that if you say there name 3 times at midnight, beetlejuice may or may not turn up. DYOR that to find out which way of course as I wouldn't want to actually be helpful.
@Watcher, if both come at once, I would be very happy.
@Legal, you know I would never acuse you of being bitter as you know I feel both sides of a coin are vital for educating and understanding.
I don't trust RM either, but that's where we differ. I don't feel the need trust a CEO goes hand in hand with company performance. For me, I would view it nieve to trust any CEO. They are there to line their pockets, achieve there life goals and support their families. I don't expect RM or any other CEO to really care about me. In fact I think to make a company like GCAT successful any CEO in charge needs to have a bit of something about them.
Now yes, the CLN thing was imo a sackable offense, but he hasn't been removed and thus we are where we are.
RM imo isn't going to become more trustworthy overnight, and that trust is clearly important to you, so my question to you is can you ever really invest here as you will always know what he did?
In terms of the other company you mentioned, yes it has crossed my mind many times and is generally run on hot air and MOUs, with each MOU followed by a raise, but I'm in, and not with a massive amount, so felt the risk was worth it as if they do pull it off, happy days.
@Legal,
While I do see that GCAT has some areas which it leaves as unexplained, I don't personally see it in the mode of a pump and dump, or just pump set up.
Those types are known as lifestyle companies. A lifestyle company is one which pays the CEO highly via money or share incentives and does this via equity raises aka dilution, on never forfilled promises of something. Within mining, those promises are usual to get to mine. Another aspect of a lifestyle company is to switch or push different minerals, depending on whats in vogue i.e., Lith explorer one week, Uranium explorer the next, Gold week after. Jumping on whatever resource is getting the most printed press in order to raise funds off of that hype.
Gcat, has stuck with its Gold mining, it has pretty much stuck to its plan too. It hasn't forefilled it yet and has had finance problems, but it is mining, it isnt using drill after drill campaigns to raise hype and cash, but rather the opposite of putting some drilling on hold.
Thus, while some promises are unforefilled still, to me, it doesn't fit the mode of a lifestyle company.
The hallmark of a lifestyle company is everything looking rosy, all of the time, so that investors feel happy and those not in, want in. The PR is super glossy, very targeted and professionally done (minus them actually doing anything other than drilling constantly, one campaign a year).
GCAT would be a rubbish lifestyle company as it messes up publicly way to often to allow for any real hype and pump train to exist. Its PR at times borderlines on comicial and really isn't very pumpy. A picture of RM topless holding his dogs on a rope isn't how a lifestyle company uses its twitter account lol.
To own or hold GCAT you need nerves of steel at times and if you need nerves of steel to hold, theres a high chance it aint a lifestyle company.
They did and its so close to the main plant its just digging required, not a new mine build.
I'm guessing, one reason for less rush is the plant can only handle so much tonnage and its not tonnage we are short of right now but rather production capacity and so capital outlay isn't best use of money.
However, once finances are more settled, adding a decent chunk to the MRE adds value. Having a 25 year LOM over a 12 year LOM for example really increases the investibility of the company imo.
Thus, I hope, we do get an MRE in the not to distant future, although appreciate it would need a lot more drilling and drilling aint quick.
So, in terms of VR, what's everyones thoughts on how it might progress.
I've always felt it appeared like a really interesting and potentially large find.
I know that recently the company stated it was on the backburner, which I think makes sense for now as other more pressing issues at play, but are we still expecting an MRE on it within next 12 months, as per the timeline of expected completed events by Dec 23 (which doesn't look like it will be met in time now, although thats not really a suprise) that was put out mid april this year in a company presenation.
Killi clearly has to be the main focus right now, but, if/once sorted, surely Vim, which I think is actually closer to our plant that the Hill, has so much to offer and add many Oz and LOM years to the project.