Originally posted by eshmun
Read his post, he is portraying himself a savvy investor based on a post facto and unsubstantiated readimg of what's happened with this stock in the past and carries on as if all junior stocks follow this exact pattern which is just untrue.
There are plenty of drivers, broad market sentiment, gold market sentiment, specific sector sentiment, "Africa" senriment. Think of how high the share prices of all African gold plays got to in 2010 based on runaway sentiment alone and then look at how hard most of them landed. Sentiment is layered over everything else that happens on a srock specific basis and can make the difference between winning of losing in the short term, ie you can throw away the life cycle of a mining projevt chart if sentiment is running hot. Sentiment also has a habit of being unpredictable and turning on a dime, that's why I always look from a value perspective as value is what protects your portfolio in the long run.
This poster is typical of those who emerge suddenly with an adgenda as he doesn't engage in argument or address specifics.
The thread was previously discussing the quarterly report and this poster immediately derailed it by staring a new thread.
My point about needing to prove (fill) the back-end of the mine plan past 5 years as the major real driver of value was just ignored. When the TO comes the resource/reserve as it stands and the feasibilty study is the major basis for defending the company's value.
Reading between the lines of the quarterly report, it looks like the deep directional diamond drill, which is one of the only ways of improving the value of the project and adding ore from M1 to the back end of the mine plan could have been demobilised after completion of that deep hole. If that is the case, the reasons for this would be important for investors to know.
I suggest anyone attending the AGM ask about what stage the M1 drilling is at and if that rig was actually demobilised (as I suspect it was) and why it was demobilised and if it was demobilised when it will return.
On this stock I'm not interested in generalisations I want to know what is happening to add value and protect us from a predatory TO.
If the directors can't support the share price (the value of the company) through market communications they can do it by adding real value to the project with the drill because the share price is not the value when it comes to a TO situation, it's just the starting point of the process. The only defence is what an expert report can conclude about a value range. That value range increases if we extend the LOM and production profile of the project.
The value of the "build" is not value accretive as far as an expert is concerned as the all that happens is the value of the "hard asset" as it gets built gets negated by the "hard debt" until the hard asset starts producing free cash flow. A TO that comes prior to the mine being commissioned is more likely to benefit from the trials and tribulations of the build itself and the commissioning phase were investors get the most nervous especially if milestones aren't being met with absolute predicabilty.
I maintain that value can really only be added with the drill bit and through enhanced feasibilty studies. The problem also is that investors always assume that the hard you work on feasibilty studies the better result you will get. In real life beyond the hype of the stock promoter you find that the harder and you work on faesibilty study and the more data you collect the more robust it becomes. Robustness however doesn't always mean a better outcome in terms of value. The data and the inputs to any feasibilty are the drivers of its value and work both ways but the stock promoters will be very hesitant to inform investors of any negative outcomes of the extra work and information.
He stated with authority that a 5% discount rate is standard in the industry. From my experience companies that use 5% are just trying to cook their project's value in the eyes of the market. He says he doesn't know the company or have any affiliation or ties to it or with the management but one comment about Richard buying a boat and going off to Rottnest betrays him. It is pretty well know that Richard was interested in the market for boats not too long ago. Coincidence, I wonder? His posts are very long and well composed to a level which seems to suggest more than just a passing interest in ramping the stock. I'm putting this down to an apologist. Probably someone affiliated with the local brokers who have churned stock and probably lost money for their clients. The players here IMO are the usual suspects, the big merchant banks that have the death grip on the share price.
The merchant banksters by manipulating the price down are engaging in expectation setting. The lower they get the price the better the starting point for the TO and harder the TO defence becomes. They will rely on the daily, weekly and monthly weighted share price aversges as their reference point for the premium offered, the lower they can get these the better. I'd say it's worked a charm already. Previously realistic expections were sitting around 50-60 cents, now they are down around 30-40 cents and there are no forces working in our favour to reverse the price decline. Managment has gone missing in action. Esh
Yeah,I've reread the post but I can't find any mention of Richard.
The first time I read it I remember Richard was mentioned.Let me know where it is.
This guy may well have been "brought in" to criticize you and try and neutralize your negative posting about "the big guys"
The sell down from the cap raise doesn't make sense, as all sorts of "dogs " started moving well off their lows and WAF continued to make new lows.
What does make sense is a big player selling into it.
The company doesn't seem interested in promoting itself and if thats the case then would they be interested in adding value by adding more reserves??
(20min delay)
