Park, take your bat and ball and go home. Umpire Bayhunter's decision is final, and correct. The most important thing is that you trust the board to act in your best interest as shareholders. Superficially this may seem to be stating the obvious, but I have seen too much graft, nepotism, gravy trains and directors acting in accordance with their obligations per the Corps Act only if people happen to be watching to know how lucky we are. When a foreign government takes a liking to a company's flagship asset in their country, it usually isn't a happy ending for shareholders. West Africa anyone? To then have a Board that through their own expertise, cynicism and foresight took on the foreign government and got the mine back, without having to ask the shareholders to fund it? To my understanding this is unprecedented. Yes their timing hasn't been great, but is that because they intentionally misled shareholders (like some other companies I have seen) or because they gave the most accurate timeframe of events based upon the information available to them at the time? The only reason we are even having this discussion is due to ASIC's outright refusal to perform the enforcement part of its role. If the share price wasn't chronically manipulated it would be somewhere around $3-$3.50 or higher given efficient markets are supposed to price in all relevant price sensitive information out to a 12-24 month horizon. At $4, everyone would be saying what a great job they did and why aren't they on 4 Corners or Australian Story? Many people including me think they are worth much more than $4, including Mr Gibson, as stated in his interview to ****** not long ago (on the Kingsgate website) How many MDs/CEOs have stated in an interview that "$3 is eminently achievable and I'd like to bill us as $5 and above going forwards" without caveats and conditional sentences to leave them a way out should their prediction remain just that. As other posters have noted, there are a few key pieces of information that are providing the chicken littles and bots with enough to sow the seeds of doubt in retail shareholders, but these haven't been announced for a reason - funding whilst progressed hasn't formally been agreed, sale of NE, spin off etc, hasn't been agreed, royalty rates, haven't been agreed. Pray tell what the board should be releasing to the market if significant events haven't happened? Perhaps - Market Release - we have verbally agreed funding with a major lender but nothing has been signed beyond a rough idea on the back of a coaster? Wood for the Trees and Adam A like pointing out how everything is "imminent", so do you honestly think they aren't going to learn not to stick their neck out quite as far this time and not release a thing until they events are no longer speculation but have happened. One last point here for all this criticism of management, please remember, they never coerced, deceived, used duress to force us shareholders into buying the shares. If you have a grievance, direct it towards Joseph Longo courtesy of Pentridge Prison (where I would like to his his permanent residence) or take some responsibility for your own actions. This doubt is exactly what the institutions suppressing the share price want. They get twice as many shares for every day the fair value is roughly half of what it should be. Not much incentive not to fleece retail mums and dads when you know that even if you get caught red handed, the chances of being prosecuted is effectively zero and you are more likely to emerge with damages than a gaol sentence.
Separately, I am dead against hedging if you don't have to (often a requirement of a loan) as the other side of the hedge needs to be filled, it isn't arbitrary. Do you think the financial institutions on the other side of the derivative transaction entered into it thinking they would lose money? Hedging, like our ASX isn't a level playing field and the hedge itself has a cost to shareholders, where it can be speculation for whoever assumess the risk on the other side of the instrument. The decrease in the underlying asset (assuming long only and hedging against falling prices) against the increase in value of the hedge will still leave shareholders at best out of pocket by the cost of the hedge. If the gold price goes up, the hedges are worthless (but the cost of the hedge is still incurred) and rather than cream on top to shareholders, it's cream on top to the financial institutions/brokers who are short if you are long. When the gold price goes down, your hedge will be overpriced (have a look at the spread on call and put options vs the theoretical price! of ASX equities) and whilst you are much better off being hedged, the detriments clearly outweigh the benefits. It's like playing against the house in a casino with the odds stacked against you. Lastly,,,,all this talk of fiats, they are crap cars (there is a great coffee table book by the same name.... ) It's just an acronym for Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino (or Italian Car Factory Turin), BMW is Bayerische Motoren Werke (Bavarian Motor Factory). When it comes to acronyms though, nothing beats the naming of the joint entity formed when Russia's state-owned gas giant GazProm partnered with its equivalent in Nigeria - NIGAZ The naivety is almost cute.
(20min delay)