I for one, had no intention to criticize Pika's post. Like Share007, I immediately saw that the posted article was not dated. Also probably at the same time, some of us wanted to know how old the news was. When I did a search - the Standard Bank material popped on the screen and the article was clearly dated 12 June 2014. So just wondering now whether there are any reasons why a 6 month old material had been posted without the date when, on other occasions, articles had been posted with the accompanying date of release. JUST wondering??
No one says BOOT or advancement of P&R infrastructure is not relevant. We all know that it is now even more relevant than ever before because if they don't sort (find solutions) for these issues like in yesterday, SDL is probably moving into the twilight zone of its existence. The nature of RELEVANCE have changed. Sounds negative, but it's reality. We've been hearing the preachings of BOOT and funding for P&R for months and months. Yet, where are we today? - not one step closer to any Boot or other possible P&R funding solution than what we were when the Standard Bank article was posted 6 months ago. Further, and the point I was trying to make, is that the world has moved on, the world has changed significantly in the past six months - particularly in the I/O space in which SDL finds itself in. SDL is now in a " very desperate" situation. Not sure if you attended the AGM - the mood from everybody was very very somber with no indication of a light at the end of the tunnel. None whatsoever. That's a fact! That's why SDL strategy has taken an about turn to now adopt a "survival" strategy. That's all they have and can do at this stage - to try and survive (as GC says - "weather the storm" into 2016- he reiterated the message over and over at the AGM) We are not under any illusions - and we are prepared to accept reality for what they are.
If I find new news (and I keep on the look-out for it all the time) , I post it on here and don't keep it to myself - not sure against whom your attack is directed. (can only be Share007 and myself).
The fact is, and Pika may want to explain what his motive was behind the posting of the 6 month old article, the article is long outdated, yet it was posted in a way which could mislead uninformed readers who don't know the SDL history. New and uninformed readers of the post would think that the Standard Bank article is "hot and current", and that BOOT and the funding of P&R is very much on track and moving forward - but this is not the case. My point is that I wanted to highlight (for other readers ) that it is OLD news, a lot of fundamentals has changed which makes that article less relevant today as opposed to 6 months ago. I say that because at the time of the article, anticipation was HIGH that the BOOT and P&R solutions will be forthcoming in the short/ near term (Oh! how many "near -term" events have we had now??) - e.g funding closure end 2014 blah blah blah. Well we all know that that is looking less likely as each day goes buy and SDL is holding on to their tenements by the skin of their teeth (so it seems). We all are aware what happened in the past 6 months - big player expansion, squeezing small players, massive I/O price drop etc etc and the rest is history. So what may have seemed "possible" 6 moths ago, is now virtually non-existent. The picture that Standard Bank painted at that time does not apply anymore . WE would like, and hope and think that the SDL infrastructure was/still is as hot and close to closure/finalisation as it was at that time (when I/O prices were still very high compared to today) but it is simply no longer the case, thus, the article has lost it relevance. FOR SURE!!!, if a similar article is posted on Standard bank's website today, yesterday, tomorrow, then everything in the article becomes and regains all its relevance. This is not the case though.
SDL Price at posting:
3.0¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
