I'm not concerned with what this company "budgets" anymore. If you need a lesson in how well this company sticks to budgets, go back and have a look at what they initially "budgeted" for Stage 2, then go and work out how much they actually spent.
As far as JZ's latest comments go, "has budgeted" refers to a plan, not an actual result. Saying they've "budgeted" lower spending doesn't mean they WILL spend less. It's just what they hope or intend to do. And we all know that things don't always pan out how you'd hoped, as indicated by the 25% increase in expenditure in this quarterly report.
"Much lower" is also vague. How much lower? 5%? 50%? Without numbers, it's hard to know if the change is meaningful. If they mean 20% lower, that would still place forward expenditure higher than the December 2024 quarter (noting that March 2025 was 25% higher QoQ).
"Net expenditures" is a flexible accounting term. Net of what exactly? They could potentially reduce "net" spending for AGY specifically, but increase the actual funding outflows to the Puna Mining JV (remember that AGY has frequently described these outflows as "loans").
Future tense ("upcoming") defers accountability to an unknown future point. They're not saying they have spent less; only that at some point soon they plan to.
Put together, the sentence says: We plan to try and spend less overall in the future, but don't ask how much or whether that means actual cuts to our overall total expenditure. It sounds positive without committing to anything measurable.
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)