I have reposted this on this thread because It is relevant to both threads.
Here is what I suspect may be the case. I will conclude at the end.
- AUZ need about $1.4 Billion dollars AUD to fund the plant.
- AUZ have a market capitalization of $81,7 Million and they have no possibility of raising the funds alone being too small and without revenue.
- AUZ have given their offtake to LG for nothing $0.00 dollars to be able to say they have an offtake, to help with credibility.
- It is obvious IMO that the board have many disgruntled shareholders, this will be visible to all that research the company.
- AUZ management have diluted the shareholders terribly and there is real pain as a result. This is also visible with research.
- The shareholders have voted the board down on remuneration successively, this is visible when researching the company.
- Management made no effort to reduce costs by salary sacrificing through COVID. This is visible to those who look.
- When any company researches AUZ they will notice that little progress has been made for 4 years.
- SK Innovation walked away from their deal with AUZ/ (RED FLAG why). The WHY is very damming considering SK and their international stature.
- LG will not fund the plant or help with funding, WHY. (RED FLAG ) Is it the resource, is it the capital structure, is it the management, or is it trust.
All of the above are my opinion and observation.
When I look at the above points I am left asking what is preventing a successful transition to be a miner.
The considerations above do not look positive, leading to a very cautious approach by prospective partners.
There are too many risks in trusting the transition from funding through plant build into commissioning and then production.
As a self defense mechanism, prospective partners are only willing to guarantee offtake, nothing more.
That leaves AUZ floundering and trying to raise funding, so far evidence shows failure to achieve funding despite supposedly being a shovel ready project, despite the SK and now LG offtake commitments.
We as shareholders past and present have seen very little detailed documentation to credibly justify the worth of Sconi,
Announcements have not been filled with content and detail, the contrary is evident.
This leaves us looking to historical events from those independents with detailed exposure in the boardrooms, SK and LG will not invest the funds needed, BUT they are willing to lock up the production.
Apparently Mr Ramsden is a director of a funds management company and that company is absent in funding AUZ as well.
I come to the conclusion that what AUZ has is not investable security at the moment. That the risks are too high, what parts are in question.
- The Sconi Resource is apparently ready to go, or so we are told.
- Management, is this a substantial weakness.
- Management, is it credible in the eyes of a sophisticated partner, knowledgeable, able to work with others, suitably disposed to international partnership cultures.
I refer to the London Presentation, the unwillingness to front shareholders in AGM's in the past, the way I feel as a very large holder of the past.
I felt so strongly that I paid a heavy price to leave the partnership I entered into. That is telling.
Please note that everything I have said is my opinion, my experience and my observation, Do your own research and make your own decisions.
SK International did, they left.
LG Chemicals have and the jury is open on that, but they will not invest their money.
RED
Expand
(20min delay)