Suck it up boys, page-7

IMO the Chairman's address was full of nonsense. Just take the following items:
1. "Completed a program to divest non-core assets realising $15m"

Yes they did realize $15m for these assets - the problem is that they lost $583.7m over 3 years in the process. Any competent management would have cut this short long before it got to that level. Murchinson cost $91m (sold for $8.5m); they then went on to produce gold at a thumping great loss for 12 months because they had signed 12 months contracts with mining services company's; they have never formally admitted this, although it's obvious from the way they behaved - this is a major transparency issue and goes to the heart of the old managements attitude to SH's (but 2 of these Good Ol'Boys are still on the board). No wonder the Chairman stated that the past was irrelevant; attitude to SH's do not appear to have changed much.

The $15m is a one off gain. Acknowledged that it does eliminate ongoing maintenance costs; this just goes to show how ridiculous is was to build the plant in 2012/13 without adequate reserves - hoping to turn resources into reserves without incorporating this cost into the project was appalling management and we still have this MD on the board.

2. "$11 million cost to recommence operations at the Cock-eyed Bob underground mine and the $10.7 million cost to re-establish the Aldiss mining centre located approximately 60 kilometres to the east."

This was an IGR asset - it was effectively a stranded resource as it was too far away from the Randalls mill. IGR wanted to prove up more resources in Aldiss (and worked with CSIRO on this) and then planned to open up another CIL plant in the location. Hauling the ore to Randalls will be an inherently high cost operation (which will mitigate against a competitive ASIC)

3."exploration is its lifeblood and the introduction of four mines in two years into operation would not have been possible had it not been for our substantial investment in exploration"

CEB, Imperial, Majestic and Maxwells were all IGR mines - the exploration success was theirs not SLX. Yes SLR have gone on to turn underground resources into reserves; but the discovery was not theirs

4. "Recently, demand for junior gold producer stocks has been severely tested with investors in this sector withdrawing to seek the huge short-term returns we have seen recently from the highly speculative “Pilbara Gold” and “Lithium / Cobalt” stories"

IMO this is crap; the Novo "discovery" in the Pilbara was announced in late August when SLR's SP was ~$0.44 - the highs (~$.75) were in Jan/Feb 2017 - the fall occurred prior to the "discovery" announcement. It's pretty clear that its due to SH's being exasperated by management; but I guess it's uncomfortable to admit this.

5. "Mining is however a long game and the Board believes that Silver Lake must not put at risk the hard-won gains made over the last two years in pursuit of some short-term / high risk share price improvement."

True, problem is that the old Management put the company at risk and unlike SBM did not have the motivation to have a clear out. Also two of those responsible are still on the board and they have shirked the honourable course of resigning.

6."Silver Lake has worked hard for two years to cut costs, pay off debt, increase working capital and strengthen its balance sheet."

Yes; but unlike NST (who LT later quoted) the management cashed out their options when the boom was on and then brought the company to its knees. NST kept its powder dry during the boom and when the bust occurred they picked up cheap assets. I guess SLR like to buy high and sell cheap.

7. "the Company committed significant funds to our exploration effort in order to improve both the quantity and the quality of our resource and reserve base at Mount Monger"

Nothing like NST's $51m; the point is they kept their powder dry and in the bust bought up Jundee for about $80m and then had money over for real expenditure on exploration; it transformed the company.

8. "The Board has targeted this level of remuneration to ensure that our remuneration arrangements remain competitive with both industry norms and peer companies of similar size and complexity to assist with the retention and recruitment of key personnel"

This issue was raised by a questioner who pointed out that their NED remuneration was in excess companies with more than 500% of their market cap and that the MD was at a level of 73% of companies with over 500% of the SLR market cap. The chairman simply pooh poohed the numbers - but I think the point was made. Unfortunately the institutions are not concerned and gave them a blank cheque.

9. "The strong results for FY2017 are a credit to all involved."

I find it difficult to accept that $2m NPAT and -8.7% TSR is a strong 2017 result with negative TSR for 2013 to 2015 with only 2016 TSR showing a positive result due to the company coming back from the depths of near bankruptcy. A story more like SBM (who changed their complete board) would be more respectable.