Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

BDR

0.00%

6.5¢ beadell resources limited

R It's important to remember where the discussion about stock...

First 18 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
worzel1

1,298 Posts.

258

06/03/17

09:38

Post #: 23117282
Share

Originally posted by riverred ↑

Hi chrisman, as I didn't want to get drawn into all the inappropriate critique of SJ and team's financial reporting transparency, I abstained from posting earlier. Your recent posts carried a fair enquiring tone, so I decided to respond.

In going back 4 year's annual financials, there is an interesting trend in the ore stock pile ozs and costs:
2016: 117koz at $80M
2015: 135koz at $30M
2014: 148koz at $28M
2013: 196koz at $23M

Worzel mentioned that when he spoke with the CFO regarding the Dec16 qtr report, the CFO made reference to the costing model. My take on it is that BDR changed its gold ore costing policy in 2016.

Given that the annual financials are audited, I have no reason to suspect that the new costing policy is not in compliance with Australian or international accounting standards or that the auditors did not comply with the Australian or international auditing standards. It is a Board's fiduciary duty to disclose all significant matters in their report as contained in the annual financials. Also, it is the auditor's legal duty to qualify the accounts if they have good reasons to do so.

Some posters are clearly dissatisfied with the info made available. But any allegation of breach in duty can become serious litigation matters that require proof beyond reasonable doubt. I have sat on a few jury panels and each time the court reminds us that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. In fact, the defendant is entitled to remain silent, much less provide proof of innocence, because it is the plaintiff's responsibility to provide the proof of guilt.

I'm more interested in understanding the costings of the ore stockpile than in commenting on the Board. Clearly, it is a puzzling matter that goes back to PB-and-team days. Until I have clarity on it, I am happy to rely on my own reasonableness test on the ore valuation, being:
90% recovery x koz x AUD pog x 50% in-situ above ground valuation factor = $82M.
Other shareholders may have different reasonableness tests.

Cheers. R.

Expand

R

It's important to remember where the discussion about stock valuation started.

It started from the Qtlies. The stated AISC and sales levels suggested that the cash balances at the end of every Qtr should have been a lot higher than they were.

The "missing" cash led the discussion to the inflated stock costs, as that is where the "missing" funds have been allocated in the accounts.

So the real issue is that the company is using more cash than everyone was led to believe.

......... Otherwise why have they just had to raise funds.

W

BDR Price at posting: 28.0¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
2 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply

Top Stories

Revolutionary inverter technology leads the clean energy charge

TKM

Trek Metals jumps 5% as gold & REE drill run kicks off at Christmas Creek in the Kimberley

From the Floor with Federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton at Diggers & Dealers 2024

Bitcoin: Current State of Play & Where to Next | Swyftx

Emerald & Azure score Digger & Dealer awards