I essentially agree with you here, the company has spent alot of money and has been "unable" to secure offtake financing, sure mining companies do spend money in antiicpation to build up Mineral Resources and acquire ounces in the ground as viable Ore Reserves for cents on the dollar of metals prices on an incremental AISC basis, but I haven't seen the company come out with any such metrics like that saying how well they have done for shareholders, say for example:
- $ of total cost spent per increase of MRE ounces
- $ of total cost spent per increase of Ore Reserves ounces
All inclusive costs too mind you, not selectively allocated costs to adjust for "one offs" such as litigation etc etc, because therein lies the credibility problem.
We still haven't seen the updates from Mining Associates reowrking anything on either project LD or NS, are they the worst in thei rfield or is somethign else going on ?
The management of AAU have terrible credibility when it comes to being stewards of shareholder value - anyone that tries to frame that in any other context must have been hiding under a rock when all the dilution has occurred, the failed arbitration, even the running of the Dominecan Republic project you might say too, so in that backdrop of credibility would you lend or advance funds to this management team / board of directors in an already higher risk jurisdiction such as Cuba ?
This is a group of directors who in the main part have been together for decades, so there's a long runway for any any financier to judge them by.
I notice this morning there was the announcement for nomination of new directors, and with $1m of recent fresh funds having gone in combined by Asean Deep Value Fund and Lucerne Enterprises you would think that these parties will nominate? I am hoping for the time to be now that the "fresh blood onto the board" comes to the fore as per Brian's July update interview. I would actually like to see at least two thirds rotation of the board of directors so there is a distinct parting with history and the stigma thereof.
Also then, if you were a party that was stumping up funds to progress these "on paper" quite valuable projects what may you seek to do to further de-risk your own investment beyond a seat on the board ? Possibly position it such that it's an easy flip into a free carry position early upon positive news ? Well that is what I mean when I say "when" it's time.
We saw published in the Annual Report that as of 25th of March the Top 20 is at around 61%, with custodial holdings having grown significantly since last report 2023 v 2024, this growth in custodial has been a constant theme week on week for the entire 12 months.
What we didn't see, but I know from my own data analysis of the Top100, is that beyond the Top 100 there is only 15% of SOI in the hands of smaller holders having less than 2m shares last time I ran the data, but that is still over 300m shares out there in hands that will most likely become selling pressure upon positive news, I think that number is still too high for the likings of the larger holders who are considering stumping up or organising the required fundng.
Anyway just my views on it, essentially management has poor credibilty based upon their own track record so anything more difficult that a full advance from off takers means that credibility very much comes into play.
Maybe go back to the company and ask for those metrics of Total $ costs spent per additional ounces acquired through exploration and metallurgy and scoping studies etc etc etc, somehow I doubt it will be an impressive story like is the case for BGD or CMM.
(20min delay)