Sorry not on the internet much.
First, the good or bad news: I am finished (as a result of the announcement on 23/12/15. Second, I don’t blame anybody but myself (Mr Shead warned about ‘risk’ at one AGM). Third, I am busy bringing on a product for sale that I hope will get exports. Fourth, I have learnt from my mistakes with Oxus.
I haven’t had time to read the thread since before the announcement, and haven’t read any RNSs since, if there have been any. I assume there is nothing I can add that hasn’t already been said by other, more knowledgeable posters. The financial loss to me is a disaster, but it hasn’t all been bad: I’ve improved my risk analysis skills, skills which are now redundant, but that is life. I’ve learnt to write better and I’ve improved my ability to understand accounts better.
The technical points I’ve learnt are:
that contingent liabs are too remote a possibility to be called a debt, but that can change, so the contract of adhesion could result in Oxus owing a debt to the Uzbeks, I assume;
that the reason to conceal the Calunius reward-sharing scheme was not what I thought but to hide a risk: if we had lost the case completely we would be more solvent, I assume, i.e. owe Calunius nothing;
that failed financings disconnect the right to claim for lost profits;
that bad news takes several RNSs, so I don’t expect anything good to come out now: resigned to losing my entire stake here.
With the benefit of hindsight, I sincerely apologise for my over enthusiasm on this stock.
Is there anything I am puzzled about? Yes, I can’t understand how a financing can fail, if the host country provides favourable investment conditions (as it has to, according to Article 2 of the Treaty) and if gold prices are reasonable and if costs of extraction are in the bottom quartile. The tricky part I missed is that deciding whether a mine is financeable going forward is different from looking back and deciding the same thing.
If anyone posts any responses to this, I will try to read them in a few weeks’ time. All the best.
---
Risk Strategy - Nobull and Papillon
Nobull, thank goodness you're ok and I thought you'd bounce back. Loved your posts over the years. Background stuff was great reading and second to none - you were one of the most genuine and thoughtful posters.
I'm at a loss, though, to reconcile your afterthoughts with what came before.
You were one of the investors who were adamant you were staying 'til the end come what may - death or glory, 100% faith, Into the Valley of Death rode the 600, all or nothing etc..
Why on earth did that mentality prevail? - and , more importantly, why have you now re-assessed your risk strategy?
Surely if this (on the flip of a coin - Tercier) had gone the other way, you'd have won , so would you have re-assessed your risk strategy then?
The point is that Win or Lose, that risk strategy was totally flawed. I thought it was madness to be honest. This 'all in' stuff wasn't a strategy, it was an emboldened mindset.
The main thing this message board totally lacked was Critical Thinking and Objective analysis. You're science trained Nobull, and you made the perennial scientist mistake ie pre-determining a conclusion and working towards that. Ignoring evidence in its way..and there was much.
The main mistake was to Conflate three things : 1)Uzbek's general corruption, 2)How much gold we had in the ground, and 3) our chances of victory.
All 3 seemed to be wrongly interlinked by many on here.
Papillon's Horse race analogy.
Yes, we had a race horse, which appeared to be in fair to good health, although a bit tattered from previous races over the years.
What did the Uzbeks have in their stable? We did NOT KNOW at all.
BUT we did know that it had the World's best trainers (Lamm and Case), it had never lost a race (The Uzbeks in Arbitration) and that it had been preened and brought to the race in the best condition it could be (by lawyer funds, Lamm's Uzbek Knowledge)
It was then rode in the race by a world's top Jockey - Stern
And by simply looking at statistics, we saw that in this type of race (overall international arbitration) we had a less than 20% chance of getting anything substantial - ie ODDS ON.
So, Papillon, if you continue to use this blinkered outlook , you'll continue to lose money.
I want everyone to make money and be healthy and happy. I know my previous words were tough love. But that's where they came from. I don't want anyone to lose giant amounts of cash. It goes through me like a dagger.
Good luck and nice to hear from you again Nobull - and good luck in your new venture
(ps For those who think I'm using hindsight here - take a look at my posts on December 15 where I speculated, using past accounts, Yearly Statements that the outcome may be similar to how it turned out. I wasn't sure (that's why I left some money in), but I was certainly getting worried.
One things for sure, I was definitely not thinking along the lines of most posters.
This Message Board opened my eyes - and I've learned a lot - but in a different way.
First, the good or bad news: I am finished (as a result of the announcement on 23/12/15. Second, I don’t blame anybody but myself (Mr Shead warned about ‘risk’ at one AGM). Third, I am busy bringing on a product for sale that I hope will get exports. Fourth, I have learnt from my mistakes with Oxus.
I haven’t had time to read the thread since before the announcement, and haven’t read any RNSs since, if there have been any. I assume there is nothing I can add that hasn’t already been said by other, more knowledgeable posters. The financial loss to me is a disaster, but it hasn’t all been bad: I’ve improved my risk analysis skills, skills which are now redundant, but that is life. I’ve learnt to write better and I’ve improved my ability to understand accounts better.
The technical points I’ve learnt are:
that contingent liabs are too remote a possibility to be called a debt, but that can change, so the contract of adhesion could result in Oxus owing a debt to the Uzbeks, I assume;
that the reason to conceal the Calunius reward-sharing scheme was not what I thought but to hide a risk: if we had lost the case completely we would be more solvent, I assume, i.e. owe Calunius nothing;
that failed financings disconnect the right to claim for lost profits;
that bad news takes several RNSs, so I don’t expect anything good to come out now: resigned to losing my entire stake here.
With the benefit of hindsight, I sincerely apologise for my over enthusiasm on this stock.
Is there anything I am puzzled about? Yes, I can’t understand how a financing can fail, if the host country provides favourable investment conditions (as it has to, according to Article 2 of the Treaty) and if gold prices are reasonable and if costs of extraction are in the bottom quartile. The tricky part I missed is that deciding whether a mine is financeable going forward is different from looking back and deciding the same thing.
If anyone posts any responses to this, I will try to read them in a few weeks’ time. All the best.
---
Risk Strategy - Nobull and Papillon
Nobull, thank goodness you're ok and I thought you'd bounce back. Loved your posts over the years. Background stuff was great reading and second to none - you were one of the most genuine and thoughtful posters.
I'm at a loss, though, to reconcile your afterthoughts with what came before.
You were one of the investors who were adamant you were staying 'til the end come what may - death or glory, 100% faith, Into the Valley of Death rode the 600, all or nothing etc..
Why on earth did that mentality prevail? - and , more importantly, why have you now re-assessed your risk strategy?
Surely if this (on the flip of a coin - Tercier) had gone the other way, you'd have won , so would you have re-assessed your risk strategy then?
The point is that Win or Lose, that risk strategy was totally flawed. I thought it was madness to be honest. This 'all in' stuff wasn't a strategy, it was an emboldened mindset.
The main thing this message board totally lacked was Critical Thinking and Objective analysis. You're science trained Nobull, and you made the perennial scientist mistake ie pre-determining a conclusion and working towards that. Ignoring evidence in its way..and there was much.
The main mistake was to Conflate three things : 1)Uzbek's general corruption, 2)How much gold we had in the ground, and 3) our chances of victory.
All 3 seemed to be wrongly interlinked by many on here.
Papillon's Horse race analogy.
Yes, we had a race horse, which appeared to be in fair to good health, although a bit tattered from previous races over the years.
What did the Uzbeks have in their stable? We did NOT KNOW at all.
BUT we did know that it had the World's best trainers (Lamm and Case), it had never lost a race (The Uzbeks in Arbitration) and that it had been preened and brought to the race in the best condition it could be (by lawyer funds, Lamm's Uzbek Knowledge)
It was then rode in the race by a world's top Jockey - Stern
And by simply looking at statistics, we saw that in this type of race (overall international arbitration) we had a less than 20% chance of getting anything substantial - ie ODDS ON.
So, Papillon, if you continue to use this blinkered outlook , you'll continue to lose money.
I want everyone to make money and be healthy and happy. I know my previous words were tough love. But that's where they came from. I don't want anyone to lose giant amounts of cash. It goes through me like a dagger.
Good luck and nice to hear from you again Nobull - and good luck in your new venture
(ps For those who think I'm using hindsight here - take a look at my posts on December 15 where I speculated, using past accounts, Yearly Statements that the outcome may be similar to how it turned out. I wasn't sure (that's why I left some money in), but I was certainly getting worried.
One things for sure, I was definitely not thinking along the lines of most posters.
This Message Board opened my eyes - and I've learned a lot - but in a different way.
No comments:
Post a Comment