deadnickIts got me stuffed why someone who CLAIMS to be a...

deadnick

Its got me stuffed why someone who CLAIMS to be a shareholder and CLAIMS to be a con-note holder would continually trash talk their own investment and post misleading statements about the state of Co affairs.

Not that i believe anything said here on HC would affect sp one way or the other.
What may i ask is the motivation for your misleading and malignant comments. Seems more like axe-grinding than intelligent comment to me. A review of the qtrly highlights glaring irregularities between your comments and the FACTS.

There are several points u made in your post that bear further scrutiny .

1. Receipts down for the qtr. yes, but it would be normal to expect a decline in production during a change of operational operator. previous qtr showed receipts in excess of $1m and on a y.o.y basis the Co has performed well, imo. I would expect receipts to return to previous uptrend now that operator issue finalised. This is obviously a dissapointment for the qtr but not imo indicitave of anything but a change of operator.

2.Change of operator. If u read the announcement properly u will see that the new operator is a Co newly formed by Mr Canterbury who was v.p of N.A.E. our previous operator. So rather than, as u suggest, the previous operator being a non-performer infact AVD has chosen to follow him into his new operating Co. Obviously AVD has complete confidence in Canterbury as operator and chose to continue that relationship on an exclusive basis.

3.US$20m loan facility. Once again read slowly and carefully or maybe u are just deliberately misleading. Co has previously ann. the up to US$20m facility.The qtrly clearly states that ytd avd has drawn down US$6.14m leaving US$7.4m available to draw down . The reason that these 2 figures do not add up to $20M is because (as is standard with revolving credit facilities) the amount available to draw down is calculated on an LVR based on the assets of the lender.

4. Asset sales. You seem to be insinuating that the Co is liquidating assets in order to cover debt obligations. We all know that the divesting of mature assets (profitably) that have achieved payback is a key component of the Co's business model.

You seem to have a good knowledge of the Co and claim to have made a sizeable investment, why if this is truly the case do u continue to trash the stock and misrepresent the facts ??
I thought con-notes etc were usually the domain of sophisticated investors, how did u manage to get involved.?
Either u cant follow the announcements or you are deliberately misrepresenting the facts. Which is it ?

regards