When I read that an officer of a junior mining company is a chartered accountant who has been involved with several “successful” public companies, I want to ask a question that the accompanying biography rarely answers. Successful at what?
Did those companies discover economically valuable mineral deposits? Did they develop mines? Did they demonstrate that a proposed recovery process could operate commercially and profitably? Did they sell a useful asset to someone who subsequently developed it? Or did they form a corporation, obtain a stock exchange listing, raise money, and experience a share price increase from which the founders and some early investors benefited?
These are different accomplishments. An investor deserves to know which one is being advertised. The word “successful,” without an explanation of the result and who benefited from it, tells me very little. Yet in junior mining, “successful” is being asked to do a remarkable amount of promotional work.
Consider the emphasis on professional credentials. A chartered accountant has a recognized qualification in an important discipline. A mineral venture requires competent financial management, careful reporting, and control of expenditures. An accountant may also be an excellent chief executive. But the qualification alone tells us nothing about that individual’s ability to judge a mineral deposit, evaluate a metallurgical process, or assemble and manage the people who can turn a technical proposal into a commercial operation. That requires evidence of relevant experience.
I want to know what the individual actually did. Being “involved with” a company might mean founding it, arranging a financing, serving briefly on its board, or accepting responsibility for years of difficult development work. A biography that places all of these activities under the heading of success conceals the very distinctions an investor needs to understand.
Credentials identify qualifications. Credibility must be earned through documented results. This brings us to the larger question: What is the purpose of a junior mining venture? My answer is that it should use risk capital to discover, evaluate, and advance a mineral opportunity toward an economically useful outcome. Its work should establish whether something worth developing exists and what would be required to develop it.
The junior need not become a producer itself. A capable exploration team may discover and define a deposit, then sell it to an organization with the capital and operating experience to build a mine. That is a legitimate business model. The discovery and the knowledge accumulated about it can have substantial value.
Nor does an unsuccessful exploration program necessarily indicate poor management. Exploration involves uncertainty. An honestly conducted program that establishes that a property does not justify further expenditure has answered an important question. Management should be able to accept that answer.
The problem arises when corporate survival and repeated financing become the practical measures of achievement, while the stated commercial objective keeps receding. A company can remain active for years. It can change its name, acquire another property, commission another study, and attract another group of investors. Each event can furnish material for an announcement. None, by itself, establishes that the enterprise is closer to earning money from its mineral asset.
The distinction matters because the promoter’s financial outcome and the project’s commercial outcome can occur on entirely different timelines. A founder or early investor may realize a gain by selling shares long before the project’s viability has been established. A later investor may be buying those shares precisely because they believe a profitable operation will eventually emerge. There is nothing inherently improper about an early investor taking a profit. But that profit cannot be offered as evidence that the underlying mineral or process has been commercially validated.
If a company’s previous “success” consisted of a profitable exit from a company that never developed a viable business, then describe the achievement accurately. It was a successful financial outcome for those who benefited. The next investor still needs an answer to the mineral development question.
I would like to see management biographies become considerably more specific. Name the earlier venture. State the individual’s responsibilities. Explain what the company accomplished during that person’s tenure. If the asset was sold, explain what the buyer acquired and what subsequently happened to it. If production began, tell us whether it became profitable. If the achievement was raising capital, say how that capital was used.
A list of company names is a starting point for investigation. It should never be the conclusion. The same discipline should apply to the promotion of new processing technologies. A proposed process requires people capable of assessing its performance on representative material, its operating requirements, and its commercial costs. Investors should be told who has that experience and what has actually been demonstrated.
An impressive financial résumé does not answer those questions. Neither does an impressive scientific résumé by itself. Relevant experience must match the work the company proposes to undertake. A capable chief executive recognizes the limits of their own knowledge and gives qualified people the authority to influence decisions. I would attach considerable weight to a manager who can explain why their technical team rejected an attractive proposal. The willingness to stop spending on an unworkable idea is an underappreciated business qualification.
Investors should also examine what management is being rewarded for doing. How much capital reaches the work needed to test the project? What measurable results justify compensation? What evidence would cause management to abandon the proposal? How much additional financing will be required before the central commercial claim can be tested? These questions reveal more about a venture’s purpose than the adjectives in its presentation.
I am quite willing to give a financier credit for financing and an explorer credit for discovery. I want the same precision when someone claims a record of building profitable mineral businesses. The junior mining industry needs people who can persuade investors to fund uncertain work. Its credibility depends on explaining that uncertainty honestly and reporting what the work has accomplished.
So, the next time I am told that a company officer has been associated with several “successful” ventures, I would like the sentence completed. What did those ventures achieve, who benefited, and what experience from them qualifies this person to deliver the result now being promised?
Until those questions are answered, “successful” is a promotional adjective awaiting evidence.
Leave a Reply