Goldplat Share Discussion Threads

[sea7] 13/4/2024 15:21

He is also on the board and may attempt to block any buyback if it isn't in his interests to do so.

[lowtrawler] 12/4/2024 23:23

sea7, that's not the point. If he offered an unacceptably low price so that the bid failed, he would be forced to reduce his holding to below 30%. He may also not be in a position to make a bid, in which case he would need to reduce his holding below 30%. He would only be able to retain his holding if there was a waiver.

Do you want Martin to control more than 30% of the votes? What if it became 40%? The 30% ruling exists because it becomes increasingly difficult to out-vote a dominant shareholder and so they gain effective control without having to own more than 50% and without having to launch a bid.

Generally, dominant shareholders will give commitments of their own when waivers are granted e.g. not to vote more than 30% of the voting shares. IMV, so long as commitments of this nature are granted, shareholders will be happy to provide a waiver.

[sea7] 12/4/2024 16:21

LT- that depends on the price. Normally it is the highest price paid by the offeror in the last 12 months, but martins purchases are over 12 months- if he is only obligated to offer the highest price he paid, which is below the current price -then it will be a resounding yes to waive the requirement.

[lowtrawler] 12/4/2024 16:10

sea7, as I said in my post "Shareholders can waive the requirement". However, would shareholders vote for this?

[sea7] 12/4/2024 15:34

if martins holding goes over 30% on a buyback, the company can ask independent shareholders to waive the obligation under rule 9 to make a mandatory offer.

[michaelfenton] 12/4/2024 15:30

Not sure that Martin O would really want to reduce his holding?

[wigwammer] 12/4/2024 10:59

Interesting discussion on buybacks but realistically, it is likely that if/when cash is being generated from the TSF the shares will not be at 8p anymore, but materially above that level. So until we know the price of the shares at that time, it is difficult to conclude whether a buyback is the best option or not. Fingers crossed we will all be looking to sell our shares at that time, or a decent number of them, at 20p+! ATB

[lowtrawler] 12/4/2024 10:30

dinky00, I had always thought the 30% rule for forcing a bid was measured against the shares entitled to vote. As treasury shares are not entitled to vote, it wouldn't avoid the compulsory bid being triggered. Happy to be corrected if wrong.

AFAIK, there are 2 ways to overcome the compulsory bid. 1. Shareholders can waive the requirement. 2. Martin could reduce his holding to keep his ownership under 30%.

[wigwammer] 12/4/2024 09:43

That's a fair point kb, but I was really referring to the TSF. The gearing there is fantastic - each $100 rise in gold adding around $5m to the value of the project. There must come a point where the returns are so material that any red tape or cost obstruction can be overcome by monetary compensation. I don't mean underhand dealings, I just mean that GDP share out a larger proportion of a vastly larger pot to get what they want, and everyone wins.. ATB

[sea7] 12/4/2024 09:09

One subtle change that I hadn't noticed or really taken much notice of was the wording in the RNS's

Up until 1st November 2022, they always stated..

Goldplat Plc (AIM: GDP), the gold producer

from 8th November 2022, they say...

Goldplat, the AIM listed Mining Services Group

This change of wording coincided with the acquisition of the 15% shareholding in the coal fines company which was indicated in the accounts to end December 2022

[dinky00] 12/4/2024 09:04

thats a very valid point Kimboy. A buyback is fast becoming an attractive option to generate profits.
They would need to buy & hold them though. Because were they to buy & delist shares, it would increase Martin Ooi's % ownership (due to reduced shares in issue) and he would be forced to make a bid for the entire company.

[kimboy2] 12/4/2024 08:08

The problem is only 25% of the production benefits from the rising gold price. Of course the TSF benefits 100% by any increase, but that is tied up in red tape at the moment.

GDP hinted in the presentation that they were examining trucking. No doubt the margin will be less than the pipeline, but we may all be dead by then.

It would be good if they committed to spending the profit from this on buy backs. Buyng the shares at a considerable discount to their asset value would more than compensate for the reduced margin.

[wigwammer] 12/4/2024 06:42

Gold above $2400.. :)

[dangersimpson2] 11/4/2024 09:47

It was always a bit of an anomaly appointing a CFO & COO and not having them as board positions. With many companies, these roles are immediate board appointments. Particularly with a CFO, you want them to have legal responsibility for the actions of the company. It is always a red flag when a CFO leaves the board but stays on to aid transition or similar, as they are effectively saying they will do the role but take no legal responsibility. In this case, it simply appears to be that the board wanted them in the role for a year to make sure they were up to scratch. Again, you could describe this as slow action or as prudence on behalf of the board, depending on your existing view of the board.

On options, having Martin Ooi on the board with a controlling position should help structure this in the interests of all shareholders. I don't mind nil-cost options with challenging vesting targets for long-term profitability & total shareholder return. Or simply options with a high, but achievable strike price.

[arlington chetwynd talbott] 11/4/2024 08:30

If you are happy, I am happy.

[lowtrawler] 11/4/2024 08:06

ACT, so long as they are strengthening their capabilities and not just shuffling existing resources to higher paid roles, it has to be a good thing. They may be a small company but their financial reporting and management is highly complex. I'm very pleased to see them make appointments.

[kimboy2] 11/4/2024 07:47

On wigwammer's point about the increase in gold price there are lots of things we don't know - recovery rate, processing cost, DRD's cut, capex etc.

What we do know is that every increase in gold price is pure profit for the project.

[arlington chetwynd talbott] 11/4/2024 07:47

Does a company the size of GDP really need seven directors? I will be interested to hear what Lowtrawler makes of this.

[kimboy2] 11/4/2024 07:40

Yes good appointments and answers Sea's point some time ago about having a metallurgist on the board.

No doubt we will be getting the options through. Gone are the days when a director actually bought shares in the company. Werner was asked this at the Q&A and rather glossed over it without answering why.

On the options I would say that 1 million each at 8p for 5 years would be reasonable. We shall see.

I expect they will be disappointed it wasn't a couple of weeks ago at 6p, but they could always have bought some shares I suppose.

[ertugrul] 11/4/2024 07:23

2 good new board members.

[wigwammer] 10/4/2024 17:21

Simple maths here. $400 increase in price of gold per oz. Conservatively 50k ounces to be extracted from TSF. 50k x $400 = $20m added to the value of TSF over recent months, or about 9 pence a share.

[wigwammer] 10/4/2024 17:07

Interesting part in the last presentation where CEO explains where free cash flow has gone over last 5 years = predominantly the TSF and buying out minorities in the core SA recovery business. Objective proof this is translating into equity value can be seen in the growth in parent equity in the balance sheet over the last 12 months. To be clear - SA and TSF are absolutely core to this business, so by any objective assessment - beyond fairytales - this is a management team focused on developing the core assets. ATB

[wigwammer] 10/4/2024 17:02

Yes DS. That's just about bang on :)

[shill10] 10/4/2024 13:45

Exactly DE

[dangersimpson2] 10/4/2024 13:16

Most investors judge company management by the recent share price performance rather than any objective measure of performance. When a share price is going up, the CEO is lauded by shareholders as a genius. When the share price is falling, the CEO is thought of as an idiot making incompetent decisions. The reality is that luck, mean reversion and the everyday decisions of employees has as much impact on corporate performance as the CEO.

For example, there is no evidence of persistence of performance when a CEO changes company. A leader who has had a phenomenal record of performance in one company is no more likely to lead another company to market-beating returns than a flip of a coin. Likewise, a CEO who leads a company to top quartile share price performance for three years is no more likely to have a company that is a top quartile performer for the following three years than pure chance. See

My prediction is that everyone who is selling today because they don't like the management will be buying back at 20p for the dividends and TSF profits in a year or so. Those who say management is unenthusiastic will then call them straight-talking. Those who say the business is boring and slow to act, will then say it is conservatively and prudently run. The only thing that will have changed is the share price.