Daz, it's pretty amazing that you just asked the mods to delete that post of yours just earlier, probably because in that post you were ranting that I had it wrong and was looking retrospectively and you were looking forwards and had it right, but you've now realised you were the one looking retrospectively and have tried to cook and argument to fit that.
I know exactly what impact the $4.6m in oppies receipts had on cash. It all adds up to lead us to $54.3m cash. That's it. There is no point in re-running the previous quarter's numbers without the cash from oppies to try and argue that it will affect future quarter's because that's wrong, It's literally like cooking the books.
The only thing the estimate is designed to do is look at what you actually have in the bank and determine if that is enough cover future net operating expenditure and for how long it will last. Yes it's a crude measure and has a lot of flaws but that's how the current quarterlies are designed.
I note that you've just introduced a new argument on capex, so I suspect you took my earlier advice and phoned a friend to help out. I note that shifting to this new argument means you're now arguing five quarters of cash remaining not the original four you've been arguing all week (but are saying that this is what you've really meant all along??), which is pretty funny. Bottom line is you ran with an argument that is wrong and bringing in other new arguments doesn't make it any less obvious that you can't read a quarterly.
Very happy to debate capex though Daz if you're keen.
Absolutely capex is an expense that until you are making profit, cannot be written off, and could potentially affect future cash. It may go up, it may go down, it may be the same. If you say they could easily spend $3.3m in capex again next quarter I'll likely agree with you, but point out that there is potentially $1.7m in cash from funding coming in the door to offset that, potentially more. You'll argue dilution, that's fine, I'll argue cash is cash and that dilution is part of the evolution of any listed company and that the oppies aren't having a significant impact on dilution. I also like to value on a fully-diluted basis anyway so no issue from me there.
I generally avoid making too many predictions but one prediction I will make is I actually think that capex will go up, not stay the same. What I've said before is that increase in CAPEX is a good thing. CAPEX is the the fundamental driver of resource companies in development stage. Operational and exploration expenditure is the driver of resource companies in exploration phase.
It's a huge irony Daz that you banged on for weeks trying to argue ABR was now an explorer, but then pull out capex, which is a driver of development, to back your bear case. It's a bizarre, fundamentally flawed logic.
For the record Daz, if you read back on my posts you'll see I've agreed with you on a number of points. Suggest you go read them. I'm only going to challenge you when I think it's clear you are just making stuff up to suit a narrative.
Incredible stuff.
Expand
