GUTUMIKE I agree with your comments about the name change.
The UML directors are probably all cluey people. But they need to remember that UML is a public company and not a private company. So in this regard; they need to issue some simple statements about the UML game plan; such as:-
1. Will the Bendigo mines still be operating in 2 years time?
2. If the Bendigo mines close within 2 years; will the Tasmanian mine profits within 2 years; be enough to allow the UML to pay a worthwhile dividend? rather than a pathetic little half cent per share dividend.
3. Will the South African mine investment yield any decent returns within the next 2 years.
The previous UML/BDG geological style presentations were alright; but for the average public company shareholder; a more meaningful presentation; would be a simple one page document; briefly stating where the directors think that UML is now and where it is going. Of course ASX rules cause directors of companies to be timid about making "forecasts"; but in the case of UML; it would be great if the directors could regularly tell the shareholders what the gameplan is; and how the gameplan is going. UML shareholders need more regular updates about the money basics; rather than technical info (which is all well and good); but to most shareholders the technical geological info does not mean much; without some accompanying easily understandable statements about the money facts.
BDG/UML has been going and "developing" for a very long time; and the time has now surely come to change gear in regard to reporting to shareholders. The UML directors now need to give an objective and honest assessment to shareholders; about where UML is at. Are the business strategies working? and if the business strategies are not working, what is to be done to rectify the situation? UML should not be allowed to continue to just "drift to who knows where?
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?