funkyroski I agree in principle with your statement. It seems to be difficult to get beyond the 'company story' around here. If...as an investor you rely on what management and the company tells you...then I think that is about all you have to base your judgment on. It seems from the argumentative 'pro company' stance most posters have here that one should not be so naive as to believe what management tells you a few years ago...as that is just educated guessing. You shouldn't be so abrasive as to ask for coherent reasons for failures of promises made...one should just accept that as part of the Australian mining business.
Well...I for one am not convinced that the mining community at large believes that issuing 'optimistic' rather than realistic projections is a way of conducting business whether it be in Australia or Argentina. Let us not forget that shareholders and investors only have the goodwill and honesty of management to clarify their investment decisions in a foreign country unless they are willing to actually travel to the country in question (Argentina) in this case....or possibly take satellite photos of the progression of the physical plant over the prescribed time period. I guess that approach would show some things to be quite 'clarified' as it were. I'm not trying to create dissension among shareholders...but rather get honest answers to honest questions about how and when stockholders who plowed hard earned money into this project a few years ago based on the promises and oratory at the time weren't misled as to how and when the project would be up and operating at full capacity, and how much money was going to have to be raised from 'sophisticated investors' in order to reach that goal.
It would seem these capital raises bi-laterally coordinated by Canaccord Genuity and Orocobre management may have created a confusing financial schematic that needs to be clarified more from a practical standpoint than a 'professional bookkeepers' assessment. I think I stated the annual report is picture perfect on the surface.... ' i's' are dotted ' t's ' are crossed....except these incongruous pictures from outerspace....but I regress.....we were talking about the benefits of these various 'sophisticated investor' capital raises and their benefit for the company a,k.a. shareholders (lest we forget who ultimately owns the company), in spite of the beneficial and gratuitous shares given the cream of the executive suite....there seems to be differing opinions about who actually 'owns' this company. I know there are a few of you that take exception to my audacity of asking questions that were considered 'asked and answered' a few years ago....but they keep raising their ugly heads in the context of under priced shipments to Japan without adequate documentation of these prior sales agreements and who signed off on them? If these prior deals cannot be renegotiated based on the current price of lithium...why weren't they negotiated as such? Was management to comfortable with the financing arrangements to force their partners at Tsusho to negotiate a more favorable deal for shareholders.... were there other reasons...?
Companies like Galaxy who made deals with Mitsubishi for future deliverables...made those deals based on current prices of lithium...and renegotiable on unknown market prices into the future. Could it be our management didn't have the foresight...or were there other reasons? These are really simple questions that could be answered by wgbt6435 and rPUaulson ...shouldn't really require management since these guys are so informed and such. Anyway....food for thought wouldn't you say.
I do hope this discussion takes us to a better mutual understanding considering the investments by trusting and hopeful shareholders over the past few years.
ORE Price at posting:
$3.20 Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
