The accounts are in and there are a few issues that I do think...

The accounts are in and there are a few issues that I do think we should address:

1. Qualified accounts are rarely good

In this case, the qualification is slightly curious in that it is not the carrying value of Snow Lake being the core issue (equity accounted at $17m is actually lower value than the transparent market value which at 30 June would have been closer to $23m). Ordinarily companies try and hold assets at higher valuations, so in this case the qualification is more to do with the lack of access the Auditors had to the books of Snow Lake to confirm the fair value based on our share. What I dislike about this qualification is the underlying issue it raises of trust, transparency and for potential for bringing on more corporate investors. I would expect there are many funds with mandates that would prevent investing in companies with qualified accounts. When we need more trust, I am not sure I understand why the Board would want to sign-off on Qualified accounts rather than find an approach to meeting the Auditors requirements and establishing fair value.

2. Qualified accounts with emphasis of matter x 2 are worse

Sure, we had 2 emphasis of matter in the 2022 accounts also, one being related to the equity accounting for Snow Lake which this year turned into a Qualification, the second, again repeated this year being the carrying value of the exploration and evaluation (E&E) asset.

The E&E asset issue can be seen from the auditors perspective like this. The market values the whole company at ~$55m which when we exclude the cash value $20m and direct investments $17m the whole remaining company at $18m. Now look at the Net Asset value of $113m and the core asset being $81m in E&E and the Auditors are reasonably asking why is the E&E asset not impaired given the market (transparent valuation) is suggesting it is not valued. The longer the market holds this view, the harder it is to justify the difference. Of course I tend to agree with the Board on this one, the market just has it wrong, but the question of economics is critical to get us out of having to view our balance sheet quite differently.

The second emphasis of matter this year is the risk of incorrect accounting on the convertible note given its complexity. While complexity doesnt concern me in principle, what does concern me is the risk that complexity (or as some might see it "Trickiness") has on ability to Trust and understand. Given Trust and Understanding are the two key issues NVA faces going forward, I would personally like to see less trickiness and more straightforward arrangements going forward.

3. Governance disclosures show clear lack of oversight
Now this one is the greatest concern to me. We had an independent Chair who resigned during the year (no word on sourcing a replacement), 3 of the Directors are the Executives (Louie, Chris and Craig) and the two independent director don't show up for all meetings, let alone provide any room for Board oversight of management.


I understand at this end of the market there are limits on governance, but if the Board and management think the company should be valued at $300-$500m, this approach to governance is not going to get us there and really needs to change. We "Shareholders" need far more than a couple of mid 30's independent directors to be seen as taking governance seriously and we very seriously need an Independent and Experienced Chair wo can ensure management is held to account.

Question for @NovaMInerals2, what steps have been taken, are being taken to source an Independent Chair?