Rob I agree with a lot of this.
My specific comment about the company obviously not believing this crappy market will persist for several years longer was related to a specific point about them putting Mt Cattlin into C&M, and that stands.
Do you really think they aren’t expecting things to turn around in a reasonable time frame, and that it still makes business sense to keep production going, or do you otherwise think that they are unique in this belief - in which case, btw, why aren’t the other spod producers all in C&M already, with their “far better” understanding of the market?? My point absolutely stands - they obviously expect a turnaround in the market and pricing within a timeframe that does NOT make sense to put MC in C&M now. If that was NOT the case, then we would be in C&M already. I’m not sure how much clearer this can be. Now this does not automatically mean that they are correct; of course no-one has a crystal ball, and expectations of the future are simply based on assessment of the information available. But is this reckless or unreasonable? I’ve seen more evidence supporting this turnaround than not, and obviously they have too, otherwise they would be doing something different, no?
I’ve not actually been some blind full-on supporter of the BOD or management as some like to interpret. I recognise that they have made both good and poor decisions. Sure I don’t bang on about negative aspects, there are enough here that do that already.
The thing is that I have been vocal here in questioning the assumptions and half-baked conclusions that some present, and pointing out that there are often many other factors that they are simply not considering, and/or that they are perhaps lacking objectivity. A lot of my points have also simply been a reality check about the challenges, costs and timeframes involved in planning, mining and development activities, something that I am acutely aware of. Some people, however, don’t like that, they want to simply feel 100% supported in their frustrated and sometimes under-informed views, regardless of whether they are actually reasonable, or whether the underlying assumptions or “facts”’are actually correct. Human nature.
Some people hastily jump to the conclusion that this equates to blindly “defending” the company, when more often that not, its a case of simply pointing out that there are other aspects to consider. It’s often a clear mentality of “if he’s not with us, he’s against us”, which is fundamentally flawed and absolutely incorrect.
Take the voting crap - put on the “enemy” list by the troop-ralliers because instead of just jumping aboard with my pitchfork, I point out that no-one here actually knows who on the BOD voted for or against what, and them trying to axe the chairman simply because he “must be ultimately accountable” or whatever, does not make sense. He MAY indeed have voted AGAINST the A40 investment - who knows? But that’s not what an angry mob wants to hear, they want “someone to pay” and some don’t actually care that they don’t actually know who is responsible. It’s actually laughable. Not the frustration mind you, the half-baked conclusions about DD, due process, responsibilities, etc.
I pointed out that the voting would probably be futile and probably need another 50m votes (as it did btw), but that was simply seen, again, by some as “he’s defending MR” or similar such nonsense. BS. I’m not at all against wanting better for the business and its prospects, but I am “against” illogical half-baked conclusions and piss-poor research and analysis, which is what a few posters bring here, unfortunately.
Me pointing out the specific rules and process and costs for accessing the share register was seen by some as “defending the company” for not handing out the T20 list. BS. It was simply a fact-finding exercise and sharing of that info so that people claiming the company was “deflecting” them to Computershare or simply “inventing” arbitrary fees, could actually separate fact from half-baked and absolutely incorrect conclusions. But no, some people would have preferred that I just blindly join the under-informed bashing, because that “supports” and “justifies” their overall frustration and makes them more “right” about the company being so “evil”. Ridiculous.
Some people simply cannot see that questioning a viewpoint or its basis is NOT AT ALL the same as supporting the opposite viewpoint.
Some people can’t separate their subjective frustration from logic, fact and reasoning, and behave accordingly. It is actually bloody laughable really.
Again, me questioning peoples’ reasoning for some of the negative views about the company/management/board, or questioning their assumptions or basis for half-baked conclusions, DOES NOT automatically mean that I think everything is positive and rosy.
There are of course many here who understand and can see this, but unfortunately there are others that automatically assume that “if he’s not with us he’s with “them”, the “evil” ones out to screw over retail holders or whatever, and interpret every point that questions something negative as simply “defending the company”. This is nonsense but it is unfortunately rather common now and seems to have been purposely seeded by a few other posters here.
Take the actual sp action over the past few years.
As I and others have shown, bar a bit of noise, we have been basically in lock-step with the likes of PLS and ORE. But some people don’t want to hear that, and don’t want to actually contemplate what that ACTUALLY means with regard to the market and the (in)ability of company-specific factors to create significant divergence. People want “better” reasons why their portfolio is down 80% from Jan 2018, and WANT to find correlations that are likely far less meaningful than they think. I pointed out and illustrated very clearly that our $280m cash injection made SFA difference to our relative sp trajectory, yet some seem to think that better comms or faster pond lining or whatever would have had a material effect. It’s nonsense imo. Now that does NOT mean that I think pushing for improved comms is not worthwhile or does not assist to better inform investment decisions, but again some will automatically think that a comment like that somehow defends “poor comms” or defends a “pond lining delay”. See a pattern here? I do, and have for ages.
Let’s jump to the other extreme by way of example - would a weekly/monthly update on key activities have diverged our sp materially from is actual path? I very much doubt it. We all might feel “happier” or whatever, but does it have a material impact on the value and growth of the company? No, imo. Does that automatically mean that I wouldn’t like such updates or that I am somehow “defending” a lack of updates? Again, NO it does not. It is simply looking at what the true impact of that might be on the performance of my investment, and putting forward a perspective that others may find interesting or useful. Or not. No big deal.
SDV will undoubtedly make all the difference here; I suspect most/all agree on that.
If anyone thinks that they could have put together a suitable JV deal that could have enabled the final SDV build to be well underway already, then perhaps join the company and make it happen. If you don’t (like most of us I suspect), then perhaps think twice about how “easy” it must be. Everything’s simple from the armchair yet most of us aren’t even aware of half the factors involved, and still there are vocal critics here who couldn’t organise you-know-what, but are apparently experts on 9-figure mining deals, what they entail and how/when they should come together. AGAIN, that is in no way “defending the company”, it is simply making a point that most, if not all of us here, have NFI of all the issues and complexity of such a deal, and therefore have little substance on which to be critical of it “not being done already”.
By all means, if anyone out there is an expert in such deals and would like to school us others on how the company actually stuffed this up and what they should have done, then please do, as I look forward to learning all about it.
Do I think there is a bright future ahead?
Absolutely I do.
Do I think the company could have made some better choices?
Yes, I do.
Do I think the perceived “solution” of a new board will automatically transform the business and create significant divergence from the broader sector trend?
Probably not. Step change to our earnings and significant de-risking toward that will, imo. Would a new board potentially assist or speed that up? Possibly, but from THIS point onwards, I’m not actually yet convinced that is a critical factor. Others might be, that’s fine. Imo people have been associating “slow” progress at SDV with the company doing “other things” (LPD, A40 etc), being indecisive etc, where it seems that the REAL hold up has simply been a lack of sufficient funding, from not wanting to settle for a crappy JV deal in a pricing lull that significantly and unreasonably undervalues the asset. Imo this is fair enough, and indicates that the company is indeed seeking the best long term outcome for all holders. We are forced to wait. So be it.
People are frustrated, I get that. We all are.
Imo some people are directing their frustration at some things that they can (or think they can) change, when in fact these things may not actually be playing a very significant role in what is driving their MAIN frustration - the sp; and along with this frustration comes an array of nonsense like claiming the company is against them, claiming people posting here are “working” for the company, management/BOD have all along just been waiting for a T/O, votes being rigged, AGM callers being locked out, etc etc.
Imagine the negative spiral here if everyone simply jumped on board with every criticism without DTOR or without trying to dig a bit deeper into the underlying reasoning or factors involved.
I’m not going to stop questioning and providing my own viewpoints as to why and how I think some things are unreasonable or misinterpreted; no one should. If anyone thinks some specific point that I present is a bit wild or unreasonable, then by all means discuss those specific points and provide your own analysis and reasoning for why your view differs - I’ve said that for a long time and have zero issues with that.
It amazes me that a few people keep incorrectly lumping points I make into “defending the company” basket when they mostly belong in the “questioning the logic/info/facts/reasoning/basis/interpretation/understanding” basket.
Btw thanks to those who see my posts for what they are, and don’t jump to unsubstantiated and incorrect conclusions about why I post here.
I was actually stunned that recently a specific poster could simply not believe that people CHOOSE to share info here for the sake of providing and discussing information (sharing their research) to a broader group of people seeking information relevant to a particular company and its prospects. Many (most?) indeed do, and that is what makes a great forum, but some still think, unfortunately, that there has to be some other motivation driving it. Wow. Sad.
If people want to sell out or whatever - fine, great, do it! The BIG shifts in sp will come with the tide and major step changes in company growth. Surely that is blatantly obvious by now. When? Who knows. Soon? Maybe. DYOR
(By no means aimed at you Rob btw, just following on from your post)
GLTAH
IMO
DYOR
Expand
