That's true kb, but can we blame current management for what happened before 2020? We know from a recent presentation that over £11m has been spent since then on the TSF, Ghana and minorities. These all seem pretty sensible places to invest, though I accept they may have overpaid somewhat for the minorities. Given that any dividends paid over this period would have largely been funded by the now declining SA operation - and to the detriment of the developments mentioned above - I suspect the well would currently be running pretty dry. |
They burnt quite a lot in Kenya. |
The posters who keep claiming that GDP has had lots of free cash flow to pay dividends really need to do some homework on what they own. Look at the equity line over the last 10 years. Up and down and all over the place. If GDP had been consistently generating free cash flow then in the absence of dividends, one would expect that equity line to be consistently rising. But it hasn't been. In fact it has only just broken the £20m mark after years of volatility. The main reason they succeeded in growing equity last year is that one of their main projects - Ghana - has come good. Well done them. We live in hope the TSF monetisation becomes the next success. But this BS about burning free cash is just nonsense. I accept timelines on the TSF have slipped, but otherwise management have been doing a pretty decent job. Not surprising given a 28%+ holder sits on the board. ATB |
kimboy2, regardless of the ultimate TSF value, the price they paid for the SA shareholding was too much. As we understand it, the minority interest had decided to sell and we stepped in as the buyer. Nobody else would have offered anything like the price we paid. It has never been adequately explained why we would offer the price we did. We could easily have offered half the price without fear of being outbid. |
they thought the buyback of SA shareholding was cheap with Gold at $1600, that is an insight into their valuation of the TSF. |
Well one way they rewarded shareholders was the buy back of the SA shareholding. You may well say it was overpriced, but that remains to be seen.
That was £3m+ IIRC. |
Kimboy
It is a fair summary -exactly pinpoints the treason why new shareholders are not attracted -if they were attracted by dividends or buybacks the share price would climb
-the only point I am not convinced of is the near the end of Capex - the company has always found one new thing after another to expend capital upon in preference to rewarding shareholders - and thus why is it now thought Capex is at an end ?
But we live in hope
Alm |
That seems a fair summary to me. |
From Small Caps Live, 03/01/2025:
Goldplat (GDP.L)
This remains one of the cheapest stocks on the market, with a forward EV/EBITDA less than 2. Given that this company recovers gold from mine waste in Africa, many investors will think this rating matches the risk. However, this is very conservatively run, which is why the company has survived many challenges over the years. The bugbear of many investors is that these challenges have required the company to reinvest capital into the business rather than paying out dividends. However, with the planned capex now coming to an end, this should free up capital that can be directed to buybacks or dividends. Given the rating, it wouldn’t take that high a proportion of the operating cash flow to see a very material buyback or payout. This may finally lead to investors rating this more highly in 2025. |
Happy new year all |
I presume the 1% smelter royalty is a charge on the property rather than a debt with the nearly defunct GCAT.
As long as someone gets the gold out the ground GDP should be paid. Whether any of us will liv long enough to see that happen is another issue. |
It's actually held at £714k in the 2024 annual accounts - note 7. Yes, I have always considered any recovery would be a bonus and a write-down likely. |
Is it time to write off the £600k that they owe us ? |
I think the reason they didn't do it themselves was the cost of meeting the regulatory requirements for the pit.
Unless it was something exponential it may be worth re-examining. I suspect that there is a fairly substantial difference in recovery rates, which given the price of gold, may make a difference.
The problem with all of this is that GDP are not in control of this. DRD are. |
 Thanks Kimboy. It makes sense that they could achieve a better recovery rate. Clearly it can't be straightforward for them to run it, otherwise they would have been doing it by now. As you describe it as "not typical" then perhaps their plant would need a radical overhaul to process it or it's the case that they're permanently committed to running customer's material and don't have the spare capacity
I understand and share people's frustrations with GDP, they appear to be extremely reluctant to provide much information about their operations. They also have a habit of talking about directions they might take and never updating us on them . For example, Werner discussed taking advantage of the high gold price and monitising part of the TSF by possibly trucking it to DRD. That was a long time ago and we've heard nothing since.
With the TSF potentially having such a considerable value, you would think they would want to get moving on it but you never get the impression of any sense urgency with GDP. Werner always seems somewhat guarded in his presentions and not that enthusiasic. The same applies to the website, I'm sure there used to more on it, such as a gallery section and the 5 line strategy section is not exactly impressive. I appreciate that the numbers have been very good and 2025 may well be a transformational year but that's been said about previous years.
I looked to see when I first invested in GDP the other day and was rather horrified to find that it was in 2010. A niche business that made good profits from goldmining waste, it seemed to have a lot going for it! Maybe it still has. |
Shill10, you obviously have more inside information on how the negotiations are being conducted than I do. I was not aware that Martin was leading the negotiations and playing hard ball poker with the third parties. I wasn't even aware negotiation was one of his skills. My criticism has been based on their Q1 trading update which stated:"During Q1 there has been several engagements with all parties involved and good progress has been made, with the aim of getting all approvals completed by June 2025."I have struggled to understand how that has transformed into the annual accounts update that they haven't even submitted the license applications which usually take a year for approval? Was it important to mislead shareholders with the Q1 update as part of the larger poker game or were they not in control of the approvals process? |
Looks as though it is nearly curtains for GCAT. |
all this negativity while ignoring the fact that the gross value of 130k oz at 50% (conservative) recovery is now c £136 million thanks to all these delays ....there is PLENTY to go around for all concerned, Martin Ooi is playing hardball poker with DRD and the Landowners to get a bigger slice of the pie for us, if you are a shareholder you are signed up to that strategy whether you like it or not, if you don't like it your ONLY effective other option is to sell your shares, Merry Christmas |
Well I think that GDP would get a better recovery rate than DRD. The problem with DRD is that one size fits all, and I think it has been said in the past that the GDP material is not typical.
GDP have a pit on their site where they were hoping to dump the surplus, but the requirements were too onerous.
It was confirmed to me some time ago that the material could be processed where it is, churned.
Another year ahead with nothing happening, and no guarantees, is disappointing. Especially as these 3rd party landowners are another slice of profit which is going to disappear.
I'd be inclined to run the slide rile over the alternatives. |
I don't remember ever reading why GDP can't process the TSF themselves. I have always assumed that DRD has a much more advanced process. However, after reading DRD's process description on their website, they appear to have a lot in common with GDP in terms of the method they use.
They both use centrifuges, mills and carbon leaching etc. I'm wondering what DRD does that GDP doesn't. If there is a difference, then isn't there an argument for them upgrading their plant so it matches DRD but on a smaller scale? Gradual processing of the TSF in house seems somewhat logical. It would also make them more of a takeover target for DRD, which would be good for us and perhaps them, based on the declining business in SA.
I'm sure there are excellent reasons why it can't happen. If anyone can enlighten me then I would appreciate it. |
Moaning …or actually the expressed desire to see this company progress beyond what is has remained for well over ten years
The TSF is actually fraught with difficulty -they will be held ransom by the land owners of whom there may be many and a ransom will be claimed for the water supply
And DRG will also hold goldplat to ransom
So it is reasonable to expect that the TSF may not deliver for some years to come
This is way the business needs to be run without the banana skin mentality of the past - far more careful investment and control of cash and an understanding that actually shareholders require a return on investment -as any investor does -and this is paid out as one of the prime responsibilities of the board - a dividend should be a prime responsibility -and paid annually no matter how small and profits permitting
Alm |
well said GB - the moaners on here are going to moan, the context of not wanting to give landowners visibility on the amounts involved explains the delay in terms with DRD not coming out yet (why give them ammunition to blackmail for higher amounts) and also explains the delays on the pipeline application which are out of management control...I too prefer them to play hardball with the landowners, let's see if 2025 is the year this thing gets agreed, the signs point that way, Merry Christmas. |
AR available at:
hxxps://cmsignition.co.za/download/files_1428/GoldplatAnnualReport2024.pdf
"We aim to have the final application submitted before the end of January 2025, subject to land owner consent. The approval process normally takes 365 days from submission.
DRDGOLD and Goldplat Plc are currently in the process of evaluating different variables that will impact on the processing of the TSF, as well as the commercials of doing so; this process will be completed alongside the water use license.
To enable us to process the current TSF through a DRDGOLD facility, we will require landowner consent, approval to install a pipeline to this DRDGOLD processing facility (as indicated in paragraph above) and will need to finalise commercial agreements wit DRDGOLD".
The way I see it - the more we are negotiating commercial agreements with DRDGOLD the better.
Martin Ooi as a significant shareholder means we won't be selling out SA operations or the TSF below their true value.
Highly profitable Ghana operations mean that the company isn't short of cash, in a weak negotiating position or solely dependent on a single operation or jurisdiction.
Yes, it is taking more time than we would all like. But all seems to be progressing just fine for now.
As for dividends...yes, I'd like them too. But keeping a robust working capital position while we negotiate with DRDGOLD for the next year is also OK with me. |
All correct Lowtrawler. We are all taking a punt. |
Still no sign of a dividend - shares retreat. No change there then. |
Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
Hot Features
Premium
