Latest news with #Endeavour
Daily Mail
a day ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Why gold mining shares are too cheap, according to JP Morgan analysts
After a strong run for precious metals, gold mining shares still look undervalued. That's the view from JP Morgan's latest note on listed producers, which argues there's room for substantial upside, especially if its bullish forecast for the precious metal proves right. Its commodities team is pencilling in a price of $4,100 an ounce for 2026. That's well above current spot levels of $3,320 and would mark a new all-time high. Based on that estimate, JP Morgan sees around 40–50 per cent upside to average analyst expectations for earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation across the sector. While the American bank focused on the larger producers, citing names such as Fresnillo and Hochschild, there's plenty of value lower down the evolutionary chain. Stocks on this layer of the pyramid are increasingly disconnected from the rising gold price, rather than moving in step. Of course, being small and mid-cap companies, it often takes time for the market to focus on inherent value, even when backed by gold. These smaller players are also more prone to operational mis-steps that larger organisations can absorb. Below is a far-from-scientific roll call of gold stocks that have thus far flown under the radar. Probably the pick of the bunch is Pan African Resources, which, with a £940 million market capitalisation, has broken free from the small-cap bracket. While its share price is up around 30 per cent year to date, it still lags the performance of Endeavour (+51 per cent) and Fresnillo (+80 per cent). Dropping down a division, Caledonia Mining stands out. Its performance has been stronger than Premier African and it comes with a very decent dividend. As valuations shrink, the link between the gold price and share price weakens. A case in point is Ariana Resources, which has modest production from its Turkish operations but ambitious growth plans in Zimbabwe. Panmure Liberum analysts, fresh from a site visit to Ariana's Dokwe project, described it as a potential multi-million-ounce asset with strong development prospects. That optimism is in stark contrast to Ariana's stock market performance, down more than 40 per cent year to date. It suggests value and opportunity may be buried in AIM's twilight zone. Ariana is preparing to list in Australia, a savvy move in a market where investors, both private and institutional, know how to value smaller gold companies. Appetite for diggers and prospectors is strong, supported by self-directed flows from Australia's generous superannuation schemes. So, watch this space. Wider market moves Turning to the wider market, the AIM All-Share continued to outperform its benchmark, rising 1.3 per cent to 746.39 and outpacing the FTSE 100, which nudged just 0.4 per cent higher. This reflects growing confidence, underlined by a slew of successful fundraisings that made May a bumper month for companies replenishing their coffers. The week's standout performer was Blue Star Capital, which jumped 150 per cent after news of its investment in cross-border crypto payments platform SatoshiPay. Avacta rose 43 per cent, a performance that would have topped the leaderboard most weeks. The appointment of two heavyweight independent directors helped ease investor concerns over a delay to the company's results. One of the new recruits, Richard Hughes, brings deep capital markets experience, possibly signalling a strategic shift for the precision medicines group. ATOME climbed 35 per cent following the launch of a new renewable energy division, initially focused on Latin America. And the laggards… At the other end of the table, Totally fell 84 per cent as investors digested the healthcare provider's semingly insurmountable funding position. Watkin Jones dropped 21 per cent after the developer of student housing and build-to-rent properties posted a loss and painted a gloomy picture of current trading. Finally, the small-cap market, especially where trading is thin or controlled by market makers, tends to react sharply to news, with professional price-setters often moving to protect positions rather than reflect true value. A case in point is hVIVO. Shares slumped 45 per cent on Friday following the loss of one contract and the postponement of another. Seasoned small-cap investors will know that sanity usually prevails, but it can take time for stocks like hVIVO to find their footing. In the meantime, it's worth remembering this is a business with £47million of contracted revenue already secured for the current year and, as of its last results, £44million in cash.
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- Yahoo
Dunkirk little ships abandon return due to weather
Crews on board the little ships that travelled to Dunkirk this week have had to abandon their ceremonial return to the UK due to weather conditions. Nearly 70 boats - all original civilian ships that helped with the miraculous World War Two evacuation of about 330,000 troops - sailed back to northern France for the 85th anniversary. But two ships from Essex will remain moored at Dunkirk for longer than expected "We just couldn't take that risk," said Cameron McGregor, secretary of the Leigh-on-Sea Endeavour Trust. "It would have been extremely wet and extremely uncomfortable for everyone." The ships last made the crossing for the 75th anniversary of Operation Dynamo in 2015, and they all gathered again in Ramsgate, Kent, on Monday, before setting sail on Wednesday. Crews and volunteers have been attending ceremonies and events in Dunkirk. Endeavour was one of six cockle boats from Leigh-on-Sea that helped taxi soldiers from the beach to larger ships - together credited with saving about 180 troops. Mr McGregor - who was one of nine volunteers returning on Endeavour - said half of his team had already taken the ferry home, and the rest would depart on Sunday. "We heard reports of a navy boat being spun around by a wave, so we decided to moor up," said the 64-year-old. "It's frustrating but these things happen. People get wound up but it's just what travelling on the sea is like, you can't predict anything." They hope to bring Endeavour home as soon as possible. Pudge is a wooden Thames sailing barge that helped save an estimated 160 troops at Dunkirk. It is now run as a charter boat in Maldon. Gerald Moore, who travelled on Pudge to Dunkirk, said: "Several of them turned round and came into the port as the waves were two metres high and running in the wrong direction. "We are almost certainly staying until Monday, but it's going to be a day-by-day check of the weather." Mr Moore said the trip was by no means a wasted journey: "The whole thing has been absolutely amazing and the town of Dunkirk has done us proud. "It's been a thrilling experience." Follow Essex news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X. The little ship crews returning to the miracle of Dunkirk Little ships gather ahead of Dunkirk commemoration What actually happened at Dunkirk? Fleeing Dunkirk: A 1940 holiday in hell Thames Sailing Barge Trust Association of Dunkirk Little Ships
BBC News
24-05-2025
- BBC News
Dunkirk little ships from Essex abandon return to UK over weather
Crews on board the little ships that travelled to Dunkirk this week have had to abandon their ceremonial return to the UK due to weather 70 boats - all original civilian ships that helped with the miraculous World War Two evacuation of about 330,000 troops - sailed back to northern France for the 85th two ships from Essex will remain moored at Dunkirk for longer than expected"We just couldn't take that risk," said Cameron McGregor, secretary of the Leigh-on-Sea Endeavour Trust. "It would have been extremely wet and extremely uncomfortable for everyone." The ships last made the crossing for the 75th anniversary of Operation Dynamo in 2015, and they all gathered again in Ramsgate, Kent, on Monday, before setting sail on and volunteers have been attending ceremonies and events in was one of six cockle boats from Leigh-on-Sea that helped taxi soldiers from the beach to larger ships - together credited with saving about 180 McGregor - who was one of nine volunteers returning on Endeavour - said half of his team had already taken the ferry home, and the rest would depart on Sunday."We heard reports of a navy boat being spun around by a wave, so we decided to moor up," said the 64-year-old."It's frustrating but these things happen. People get wound up but it's just what travelling on the sea is like, you can't predict anything."They hope to bring Endeavour home as soon as possible. Pudge is a wooden Thames sailing barge that helped save an estimated 160 troops at Dunkirk. It is now run as a charter boat in Moore, who travelled on Pudge to Dunkirk, said: "Several of them turned round and came into the port as the waves were two metres high and running in the wrong direction."We are almost certainly staying until Monday, but it's going to be a day-by-day check of the weather."Mr Moore said the trip was by no means a wasted journey: "The whole thing has been absolutely amazing and the town of Dunkirk has done us proud."It's been a thrilling experience." Follow Essex news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Scoop
23-05-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Budget 2025: Science System Funding
Amid this year's science sector reforms, the 2025 Budget includes money for the establishment of three new Public Research Organisations and a gene tech regulator. Science, Innovation and Technology Minister Dr Shane Reti announced that the Budget was reprioritising existing funding towards 'new growth-promoting investments.' A large portion goes to Invest NZ and the new gene tech regulator. Money has also been set aside for three of the four new PROs and disestablishing Callaghan Innovation, while several research grants face funding cuts. The SMC asked experts to comment. 'For the science system, Budget 2025 is both uninspiring and unsurprising. 'The overall delegation for Science, Innovation and Technology is $1.17B which is about $45M less than the last budget. Aotearoa has long languished in the bottom half of the OECD for spending on SIT as a share of GDP. Politicians and their advisors talk the big game of wanting to be more like Denmark, Finland and Singapore. But by the OECD's own metrics, we're more like Turkey and Greece. Maybe we'll end up neighbours with Lithuania. Time will tell. 'The budget is largely a shuffling of the deckchairs, with no new investment in the major funds, and some taking from Peter to give to Paul. 'Most of the spending is from 'reprioritisation' to enable the SIT reforms. The Health Research Council and Catalyst Fund are down $29M while the Endeavour Fund, Strategic Investment Fund and Marsden Fund are stagnant. The cut to the HRC budget is a red flag, given the ill-considered defunding of the social sciences and humanities last year, and last week's decision to pause a contestable Endeavour round in 2026. We've already seen the fallout of defunding across our network, with Māori researchers disproportionately impacted. Cuts in HRC funding will likely compound that. We will be closely watching for signals of a narrowing of scope to 'deprioritise' Māori health and public health research in the coming year. 'In terms of dedicated Māori SIT funding, the crumb gets some upsizing, with He Ara Whakahihiko Capability Fund increased from $5.98M to $10.98M. That's a relatively big boost but from a very low investment base. In short, the crumb remains a crumb. 'Not so for gaming development firms who enjoy a third year of rebates ($44M) – two of them under the SIT appropriation – for eligible expenses which includes marketing and consumer research. That of course pales by comparison with the whopper $577M increase to the international screen production rebate (in the Economic Growth appropriation) which will take the government's investment in the film industry to $1.09B over the next four years. 'The SIT budget is a world away from the recommendations made in the 2021 Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga report ' Te Pūtahitanga: A Tiriti-led science-policy approach for Aotearoa New Zealand '. That report laid out an ambitious te ao Māori agenda for SIT reform, including the establishment of a mātauranga Māori entity, stronger monitoring of Māori SIT investment , and a more devolved approach to SIT to empower and support community-led priorities and solutions. It's a vision to which we remain firmly committed.' Conflict of interest statement: Tahu Kukutai was the lead author on Te Pūtahitanga. Professor Amanda Black, Director & Distinguished Professor Phil Hulme, Deputy Director, Bioprotection Aotearoa, CoRE, comment: 'At a time when almost all OECD nations are investing more in science to target major global challenges to the environment and human health, it is concerning to see New Zealand focus its science budget on organisational restructuring and science oversight rather than research to improve the outcome of New Zealanders. Science is a core element of economic growth recognised to deliver significant net benefits for every dollar invested. Yet nowhere in the budget are there initiatives to support long-term fundamental science. Funds that should have supported new science through MBIE Endeavour grants, Health Research, Marsden, Partnered Research, and Strategic Science Investment funds have been repurposed to help create new public research organisations and yet another layer of bureaucracy, the new Prime Minister's Science, Innovation and Technology Advisory Council. 'Instead, this government is focused on new tech industries to lift our economy, despite evidence that successful tech start-ups soon migrate overseas where the private sector is more supportive of innovation. Moreover, there is $22.9M set aside for a gene tech regulator that has yet to be passed into law. This non-research, regulatory body sits squarely in the STI budget, money that could have been used for research instead. The gene tech regulator budget is similar some of the national Centres of Research Excellence and SSIF platforms that do produce innovative research.' Conflict of interest: Professor Black was part of the gene technology regulation Māori focus group Professor Travis Glare, CEO, Lincoln Agritech Ltd., comments: ' The budget is, not unexpectedly, very disappointing with no new investment in research and development. In fact, money is being taken out of the funding of conducting R&D to fund the new structures, including the merger of the CRIs and establishment of the Science, the new gene regulator and the Innovation and Technology Advisory Council. 'While all these initiatives have some merit, by not budgeting separately for these, significant funding is being taken out of the engine room of R&D at a time when there is already considerable strain. The upshot is that the government's stated aim of increased commercialisation of science outcomes is highly unlikely to occur and the pipeline of discovery and development that drives innovation will be reduced.' Conflict of interest statement: 'I am CEO of Lincoln Agritech, Professor at Lincoln University, CSO of Biosouth Ltd, and Managing Director of Agroceutical products NZ Ltd.' Dr Sam McColl, President of the Geoscience Society of New Zealand, comments: 'Greater investment in geoscience research and education needed to be a priority of the budget, for a country plagued with natural hazards and the onrushing impacts of climate change. If we want economic growth, we need to strongly invest in a geoscience workforce that can guide the sustainable use of our natural resources and help us live with our natural hazards. Budget 2025 fails to achieve that, doing little to reverse the recent trajectory of cuts in funding across the stretched science and tertiary education sectors. 'There is a flatlining of major contestable funding and core funding for research and tertiary institutes. That hardly paints a picture of growth. While there is a welcome ~25% increase (from $38M to $48M) in funding for doctoral training and research that supports Vision Mātauranga, this is countered by cuts elsewhere. There is a ~$10M reduction to the Catalyst Funding used to drive important international collaboration that helps NZ to learn from innovations overseas. 'There are also reductions to funds that target collaboration between the tertiary sector and industry, as well as cuts to tertiary education scholarships and awards. The 3% increase in tertiary education fee funding is, on the one hand, much needed, but on the other hand, it is barely keeping pace with inflation. 'This budget tells me that we need to brace for more turbulent times ahead, and I worry for the stability of the science sector and training and retention of geoscientists and other scientists in Aotearoa and what that means for our country's future prosperity and safety. ' Conflict of interest statement: Sam McColl works for GNS Science where he receives funding from MBIE, but is commenting here in his capacity as the President of the Geoscience Society of New Zealand. Associate Professor Pania Te Maro (Ngāti Pōrou, Te Whānau ā Pōkai), Kaihautū Māori – Te Kura o te Mātauranga, Institute of Education, Massey University, comments: 'The new budget narrowly focusses on science for profit and commercial enterprise, stripping away safety mechanisms and marginalising Indigenous wisdom and tikanga through minimal funding to Wānanga. Nowhere does the Minister mention the ethical responsibilities that should be associated with the doing of science and scientific outcomes. Political appropriation of science for greed by focusing on profit and commercial enterprise constricts what ethical, Indigenous scientific research can do to benefit all people and our world. 'Professor Georgina Stewart and Associate Professor Sally Birdsall (2025) point out that environmental science has been stripped from the education curriculum. Restricting and reducing science research to a singular knowledge and cultural system, particularly for narrow and dubious market purposes, is reductionist science and can only lead to unenlightened societies. 'Marginalising Indigenous and environmental ethics, wielding neoliberal, monocultural scientific knowledge for the purposes of profit and commercial enterprise has already led to devastatingly negative consequences to people and our planet. This has been further compounded by basically defunding the checks and balances that Humanities and Social Sciences research would provide. Science is not meant to support an economy of flourishing for some at the expense of others. This approach to science funding is unethical.' Conflict of interest statement: 'I have 0.05 FTE with a research team who have TLRI funding to research how teachers enact equity for Mātauranga Māori in their science classes. This might be seen to be a conflict of interest. I am also Co-President of the NZ Association for Research in Education, but not commenting in that role.' Te Pūnaha Matatini researchers Professor Tammy Steeves, University of Canterbury; Associate Professor Sereana Naepi, University of Auckland; and Dr Emma Sharp, University of Auckland, comment: ' You can't say that they didn't warn us. This budget announcement is consistent with expectation: a one-eyed focus on economic growth driven by advances in science, technology and innovation, with limited investment in the people and fundamental research that underpins it all. 'This is a one-dimensional approach to research funding that will produce one-dimensional results. Without a rich tapestry of ideas, perspectives and knowledges — including social sciences, humanities and Indigenous knowledges — we are putting all of our economic futures in one basket. 'Without dedicated investment across a diverse research sector, other countries will recruit our world-class researchers and ultimately benefit from their innovation. To retain the researchers we have invested in and bring new people and ideas to our shores, we need to invest in the long term health of our research sector. 'We're a small island nation facing massive challenges, and we can't develop effective responses without government investment. We already know this path leads nowhere, but we keep going down it, knowing that there's nothing there. The people will leave, the ideas won't come, and the innovation won't happen. ' No conflicts of interest. Associate Professor Jeremy Moses, President of the NZ Political Studies Association, comments: ' While it appears that significant cuts to tertiary funding feared by many within the sector have not materialised, we remain concerned about the exclusive focus on funding research that delivers commercialisation, economic growth, and technological innovation. 'Political science and other social sciences have always played an essential role in understanding the potential impacts of new technologies or unlimited economic growth to minimise the negative impact on human society, political institutions, the environment, or the climate. 'With the current pace of technological change and developments in AI feeding into climate change and global political instability, access to funding opportunities should be restored to those who conduct detailed, high-quality research into these potentially harmful impacts on our politics and society. There are real-world benefits for New Zealand citizens in the political and social sciences and we cannot afford to run-down these areas of expertise through denial of funding opportunities. ' No conflicts of interest. Dr Pierre Roudier, President of the NZ Society of Soil Science, comments: 'On the surface, the budget announcement will bring some sense of relief to soil scientists impacted by the merging of Crown Research Institutes (CRI) into mostly 2 Public Research Organisations (PRO) — this represents a significant part of our membership — with the announcement of $20 million allocated over the next 2 years to support this fundamental change in the NZ science sector. But beyond the surface, it is extremely concerning that this allocation is actually not new funding, but rather a reallocation of existing research funding. 'While the merging of CRIs into PROs will address some of the structural issues identified in the Science System Advisory Group report led by Sir Peter Gluckman, the budget presented today does not address another critical issue raised by the same report, which is the scarcity of science funding – only made more difficult by the recent announcement of the cancellation of the 2026 grant application round of the Endeavour Fund, and the termination, without replacement, of the National Science Challenges last year. 'It is well documented that this scarcity in research funding, particularly towards fundamental research, will continue to hamper and limit the contributions of the science sector (including soil science) to the innovation economy, and increase the 'brain drain' from the science system.' Conflict of interest statement: Pierre Roudier is employed full-time by Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research as a Senior Scientist. He is also the current President of the NZ Society of Soil Science (NZSSS), and his commentary is provided from his perspective as President of the NZSSS. Dr Richard Allibone, Vice-President of the NZ Freshwater Sciences Society, comments: ' The NZ Freshwater Sciences Society is deeply concerned about the failure of this government to increase science funding. While the Society recognises there are budgetary constraints, the message this static funding allocation sends to both established researchers and students is that science is not a priority. The limited support of New Zealand's research sector continues to drive down both New Zealand's present day scientific capability and also our future capability. 'While the government may recognise an infrastructure deficit, in the science sector it is failing to see this static funding is creating a scientific capacity deficit that impacts on the present day research output and will increasingly impact on our future scientific capacity. Rebuilding our scientific capacity once lost is a long process and this is becoming an increasing risk, to the detriment of future New Zealand. ' Conflict of interest statement: 'With respect to the budget, I do not have any conflicts of interest. I have no government contracts or research funding.' Professor Frédérique Vanholsbeeck, Te Whai Ao — Dodd-Walls Director, University of Auckland, comments: ' This a flat-line Budget, maintaining reduced expenditure set last year as part of the Government's reform programme. Taking inflation into account, this is effectively a decrease. Halfway through its term in office, this Government has still not replaced what it cut in 2024, failing to announce any new money for a sector that has been in a constant state of reform for several years. 'Consequently, we are witnessing the slow destruction of the science sector, with a continued lack of investment effectively gutting it of people and infrastructure as researchers leave the country. These decisions will take a long time to recover from – let alone reverse. Much like the broader national infrastructure sector, the science sector needs bipartisan agreement on long-term plans. 'Te Whai Ao — Dodd-Walls is disappointed not to hear anything further about the Advanced Technology PRO given Advanced Technology is a stated Government focus. The Budget only announced funds to cover the three Public Research Organisations it's in the process of creating. It has said it intends to form a fourth – ATPRO – by 1 October but there was no specific mention of funding for it. 'The Government can't afford NOT to support photonic and quantum technologies research. It is essential for New Zealand's economic growth, as a driver of our national security, climate and earthquake resilience as well as a high-performing health sector. It's estimated that global quantum markets are set to top $62bn by 2030. On the face of it, following this Budget, New Zealand will struggle to enjoy its rightful share of that. ' No conflicts of interest. Dr James Hutchinson, CEO of KiwiNet, comments: ' We welcome the government's continued focus on lifting impact from New Zealand's science, innovation and technology, including the $100M boost to the Elevate fund. The changes to how employee share schemes (ESOP) are taxed are also a positive step to help start-ups attract talent and grow. While the new tax incentive to invest in productive assets will help businesses generating taxable income, start-ups need different support, especially those that are research-intensive and pre-revenue. 'If Aotearoa is serious about capitalising on these initiatives and delivering on its Going for Growth vision, we need a meaningful lift in investment right across the science, innovation and technology system, from fundamental research through to impact. 'This includes commercialisation as a critical piece of the puzzle. Right now, less than 1% of public investment in the science system supports commercialisation, yet this is the crucial step that gets research out of institutions and into the world as new products, services, and businesses. Backing commercialisation is one of the smartest ways to unlock the full potential of Kiwi science and deliver results for New Zealanders. Further investment in commercialisation and entrepreneurship will create a system ready to deliver more value and economic impact in the future.' Conflict of interest statement: KiwiNet is primarily funded by the Government through the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. Its shareholders are New Zealand universities and publicly funded research organisations. Dr Sereana Naepi, Associate Professor Sociology, Waipapa Taumata Rau University of Auckland, and Rutherford Discovery Fellow, comments: 'To be an innovation-driven economy, we need to invest in innovation, which this budget has failed to do. Time and time again, studies have shown that investing in research and innovation returns significant gains to the economy – if we want to grow the economy, then investment in research and innovation will bring us back at minimum $2.56 for every dollar we invest. Despite desires to 'secure the long-term success' of the science and innovation sector, this budget does little to inspire trust that this will be possible. Instead, cuts to social sciences, humanities and innovation are being used to pay for a bureaucratic exercise of re-shuffling the deck chairs when we could be spending that money on growing our economy through research. 'We could be solving civilisation-scale challenges and developing the researchers who will go onto develop the next long-term HIV prevention medication or stem cell therapies, contribute to quantum computing and AI robotic development or provide solutions to climate driven inequality and persistent and compounding wealth inequality. Instead we will continue with business as usual and hope for a different outcome.' Conflict of interest statement: 'Current member of MBIE Science Board but not commenting in that capacity.' Science education researchers Professor Georgina Tuari Stewart (Ngāpuhi-nui-tonu, Pare Hauraki), AUT; Associate Professor Sally Birdsall, University of Auckland; and Dr Brian Tweed, Massey University, comment: 'With this budget the government has gone further down the path that sees research, science and technology only in terms of contributing to economic growth. It is an outdated fantasy that scientists in their laboratories are intently working on new inventions that can be commercialised to reap enormous profits, yet this seems to be the thinking behind the Vote Business, Science and Innovation. The repeated use of the phrase 'mission-led science' indicates that business and economic imperatives will dictate what scientists study. Protecting the environment and the interests of Māori are still present, but downplayed. To premise the science system on economic growth and commercialisation excludes these from being the object of research, yet they are the very things that are destroying our planet. That this government champions business interests is shown by the composition of the boards of the newly-restructured Public Research Organisations, which are dominated by business people rather than scientists. The cancellation of the Endeavour Fund last week, and the elimination of the social sciences and humanities from the Marsden Fund last year, show how this government is willing to disregard the social impact of science and technology, and the ways science and society are intertwined. A society needs more than an economy; we need to look after our people and our environment. As science educators, we are mindful of the need for: a critical mass of young people with science-based skill sets; sufficient resources for our research, and expert mentors in our universities. 'Without sufficient funding, resources and teachers, young people will go overseas to study and work, causing the withering and eventual death of scientific research in New Zealand. If that happens, there will be no contribution from the science sector to the economy.' No conflicts of interest. Dr Brendon Blue, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Studies at Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington, comments: 'Overall, this budget appears to represent a real-terms cut across much of the science sector. This compounds the ongoing underfunding of New Zealand's research system, which under this government has suffered from abrupt halts to major grant rounds and a drastic narrowing of funding eligibility. 'This reflects a new tendency toward ideological interference in the science system. Politically inconvenient research is becoming more difficult to fund, in favour of a narrow, instrumental understanding of innovation. This is happening with very little consultation or public discussion, and I don't remember it being campaigned on. This budget confirms these impositions on the research sector. 'New Zealand's politicians have generally avoided micromanaging our researchers, especially when it comes to the 'blue-skies' research for which Marsden is our only significant funder. Attempting to pick winners by restricting funding to a limited set of fields, as the government did late last year, implies that politicians think they know better than our researchers and the global communities they are part of. 'The introduction of an 'economic benefit' test for the Marsden, at the expense of global significance, highlights this. So too does the government's new Science, Innovation and Technology Advisory Council, which seems more focused on commercial outcomes than the broader social and environmental benefits that research can provide. 'These changes clearly affect the social sciences and humanities, including a disproportionately high number of Māori researchers, who have been explicitly excluded from key funding streams. Less obviously, though, it also impacts scientists whose work examines the fundamental building blocks of our world. Introducing narrow, parochial criteria for economic impact undermines the long-term, exploratory research which has produced many of our most significant insights. 'This is about more than just which projects get funded. It's also about providing a structure that supports, develops and offers hope for the next generation of researchers. An overly narrow-minded understanding of what innovation is will cause many of our smartest and most highly qualified young people to give up or look elsewhere.' Conflict of interest statement: 'I receive funding from the Endeavour fund.' Dr Troy Baisden, Co-President New Zealand Association of Scientists, Principal Investigator Te Pūnaha Matatini Centre of Research Excellence, and Affiliate with Motu Research, comments: 'Following last year's nothing-burger budget for science, this year edges toward a black hole burger. Many areas of research may now be heading across a threshold where there's no escape and they can no longer rebuild capability on par with what is being lost. For most, there's no easy way to know until it is too late, and the tendency is to keep many areas on life support applying for contestable research funding. Our trajectory matters, because over a decade or more it determines whether our economy will move ahead with peer nations or fall behind. 'The suction away from our best scientists includes millions of dollars going from the contestable research funds like Marsden ($5.5m cut in 2026/27) and smaller cut from the Health Research Fund. A cut of $24m will hit the longer term Strategic Science Investment Funding, although it is expected to rebuilt its funding over time. The Endeavour Fund has no cuts but won't take proposals next year, and the two main funds for Universities, the Performance Based Research Fund and Centres of Research Excellence face another year with no inflation adjustments. 'Important areas like GeoNet get a cut of about 13%, or $4m, while the research initiatives related to the space sector appear to be petering out. 'Cutting the science being done will pay for strategy, management and administration initiatives, including the establishment of three Public Research Organisations (PRO) out of the more numerous Crown Research Institutes, the development of the Gene Technology Regulator, as well as the Prime Minister's Science Innovation and Technology Advisory Council and more policy support in the Ministry. In addition, the Government has had to backtrack a bit on the intended levels of cuts for Callaghan Innovation and the Gracefield Innovation Quarter, so that the 4th PRO – an Advanced Technology Organisation can begin to be assembled next year. 'Looking at the cautionary tales from budgeted initiatives and reforms like this, we often see that the process of contracting and completing reforms is slower than expected – meaning the government fails invest reliably in the new science it claimed would receive support. 'Ultimately, this budget will leave the science that underpins understanding of our hazards and environment ever closer to falling over the brink into the black hole of capability collapse, where skills and knowledge unique and essential to New Zealand are lost. Despite selling itself on attracting new investors to support tech growth, it does little to maintain the foundation of competence in our research and innovation system that investors will be looking for. 'As we dig deeper into the numbers over the next day, a key question will be whether the foundation of core public research will be rebuilt in future years toward a target suggested by the Science System Advisory Group of about 0.6% of GDP, or will it continue to track down through 0.3% of GDP. This target is more useful that the now abandoned 2% of GDP as Research and Development, because it delivers a foundation on which investment by business and government to achieve immediate goals pays off. And that pay off matters because the quality of our foundation can move us up the scale where every dollar spent on research today delivers $5 to $20 to our economy over a decade or two. Yet, every cut subtracts from our future economy. 'In terms of future foundations, one positive side of the budget was much needed commitments to science in primary and secondary education. As children grow up, this could help our nation see the importance of science and technology.' No conflicts of interest. Dr John McDermott, Chair – Independent Research Association of New Zealand (IRANZ) and Executive Director, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research, comments: Budget Reaction – Time to Back Science with Long-Term Investment 'A thriving economy rests on four pillars: a strong science and innovation sector, secure property rights, a sound financial system, and efficient transport and communication networks. Science generates the ideas and knowledge that drive the development of new goods and services; property rights protect the fruits of innovation; the financial system enables growth and scaling; and transport and communications systems connect us to global markets. 'These principles emphasise the significance of public investment in R&D for achieving long-term economic prosperity. Science funding is not a luxury or a cost – it is a core ingredient in economic success. Yet Budget 2025 underdelivers for science – at best holding funding steady in nominal terms, and at worse an actual reduction to health research funding, while inflation continues to erode our national science capability. New Zealand invests approximately 1.5% of GDP in science, while the average expenditure within the OECD sits at approximately 2.7% of GDP. 'We urgently need a long-term strategic plan, along with associated investment, for science and technology. Agencies like MPI have created excellent roadmaps in areas like biotechnology and climate-smart primary production, but these strategies remain unrealised without funding. Strategic planning without resourcing is not a plan – it's a wish list. 'We applaud the new investment in advanced technology research at Robinson Research Institute. This kind of targeted funding is precisely what New Zealand needs: it boosts high-tech exports, strengthens connections between research and industry, and generates high-value jobs. But one initiative alone does not build a future. We need to see this approach expanded to other areas of advanced science and technology with the potential to generate real wealth for Aotearoa. 'Without a step change in science investment, we risk falling further behind not only in global competitiveness but also in our ability to address the complex challenges facing New Zealand.' Conflict of interests: None declared. Dr Lucy Stewart, Co-President, New Zealand Association of Scientists, comments: ' In the leadup to the Budget we have seen commentary reminding us that the main roadblock to Aotearoa New Zealand's research and science system achieving its potential is funding. This was also a key theme of the first Science System Advisory Group report. 'In response, the Government has cut frontline research funding in order to pay for its back office science reforms – the very thing that it purports to be against. Overall, science funding has dropped by approximately $45 million. The Health Research Fund, the Catalyst Fund, and other funds are being cut to pay for the set-up of the new Public Research Organisations and a new gene technology regulator. The Endeavour Fund is relatively untouched, but we know that no new grants will be made in 2026 – so for researchers who aren't successful in the current funding round, this funding will still be unobtainable. Significant cuts are also forecast in future years for the Marsden Fund and the Strategic Science Investment Fund. 'This is exactly what scientists feared would happen and it is unsurprising, but still beyond disappointing to see it play out in Budget 2025. The Government talks about science as a cornerstone for economic growth, but it is unwilling to put its money where its mouth is. This Budget will see more science jobs lost and more researchers leave the field or indeed the country. We will never achieve economic prosperity based on research without a government willing to invest in the foundations – researchers, research, and infrastructure – that support the overseas economies which succeed through science and innovation. 'No wonder they have talked so much about the need for the new Prime Minister's Science, Innovation and Technology Advisory Council to 'deprioritise' areas of research. The Government is making sure they will have no other choice. 'I can however point to one small bright spot – the He Ara Whakahihiko Capability Fund, formerly the Vision Mātauranga Capability Fund, has received a small but meaningful funding boost, as have fellowships for early and mid career researchers. If only the same could be said for the rest of the science and research system.' Conflict of interest statement: 'Also a spokesperson for the Save Science Coalition.' Professor Nicola Gaston, Director of the MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology, comments: 'My nana always used to say that if you don't have anything positive to say, it is best to say nothing at all. I have always kept that advice in mind — in particular around commentary on science funding. 'But this budget expects us to celebrate a reprioritisation of existing funding towards 'new growth-promoting investments in science and innovation'. 'I'm all up for demonstrating the value to the taxpayer of publicly funded research. There is no lack of data on the economic and societal benefit. 'But this budget is an insult added to the injury of the last few years; our universities and public research organisations have shed staff en masse; the only recognition from government of the implementation costs of our current science sector reforms has been to cancel the upcoming Endeavour funding round, because it is only the cost of administrating the funding that they recognise. Not the value of the science that needs doing. 'I do not always want to focus on the quantum of funding. But this is the budget that follows our 'once in a lifetime' review of our science sector, a report that repeatedly and insistently pointed out how underfunded our science system is. It could indeed do so much more for us as a country: it won't, not on starvation rations. 'There has been sufficient public commentary on the scale of the current brain drain that I will not repeat that here. 'Nothing further to add; my nana was a wise woman. ' Conflict of interest statement: Nicola Gaston receives funding from the Tertiary Education Commission as the Director of the MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology. She also receives funding from the Marsden Fund. All research funding goes to the University of Auckland to pay the costs of the research she is employed to do. Professor Richard Blaikie, Deputy Vice Chancellor Research & Enterprise at Otago University and a Director of Otago Innovation, comments: Administration and Reorganisation ahead of Realising Aspiration 'Budget 2025 represents another year of treading water for research in Aotearoa, with no obvious new appropriations to support front-line research. Instead, funds are reallocated to account for costs involved in transitioning our Crown Research Institutes (CRIs) into Public Research Organisations (PROs) and other administrative functions in the system. These functions are important to support, but this should have come as additional investment rather than as 'reprioritisation' of funding that is already very thinly spread. 'The Minister makes a clear call to arms for us to be able to fully realise the contribution research can make to economic growth and the wellbeing of New Zealanders. We can all support this call, but realising this aspiration without appropriate investment is difficult. Achieving our full potential for economic growth through innovation and commercialisation is particularly challenging as we compete with all other developing economies who share the same goals, and who invest much more. 'Likewise, research-led improvements to wellbeing for New Zealanders and our natural environment will fall short from the need to prioritise from the set of 'must have' activities into the subset that we 'can afford' – the opportunity cost of this approach is massive, and future generations will not thank us for this conservative approach.' No conflicts of interest. Associate Professor Mike Grimshaw, Press Officer for the Sociological Association of Aotearoa New Zealand, comments: 'The newly established Prime Minister's Science, Innovation and Technology Advisory Council provides an excellent opportunity for sociology to participate in a constructive fashion in line with the Government's Budget announcement of Growth-promoting Science and innovation. 'SAANZ researchers have the knowledge, skills and understanding that can and should be drawn upon, not least because it is only by understanding society and societal forces and changes that Science, Innovation and Technology can achieve what is desired, because growth and innovation occur in and out of society. 'Sociological research and researchers can and should also be drawn upon to contribute to understanding the needs, developments and impacts of the newly established Bioeconomy, Earth Sciences and Health and Forensic Public Research organizations. 'Therefore SAANZ reminds the Government that sociology has a role to play within and assisting these new Organisations achieving best outcomes for New Zealand, and extends an offer to participate. ' No conflicts of interest. Dr Jo Monks, Acting President, New Zealand Ecological Society, comments: 'The science system funding plan outlined by the government in Budget 2025 sends a clear signal about prioritising investment in science that is likely to result in commercial gain over science motivated by environmental goals. In Hon Dr Shane Reti's words, the government is 'backing modern, commercially focussed science'. 'Key initiatives announced include the establishment of a 'bioeconomy' organisation and promoting gene technology. The government's focus has been rapidly shifting away from ecological and social science rooted in environmental health, and towards science that will make more money, over recent months. While all investment in science is positive, the New Zealand Ecological Society is concerned that the commercial focus of today's science funding announcement will result in further erosion of ecological science in Aotearoa. Meanwhile, strong investment in te taiao and applied ecological research has never been more important.' No conflicts of interest. Professor Kelly Dombroski, President of the NZ Geographical Society, comments: 'As geographers, our core work is understanding human-environment relationships. This work is more important than ever in these times of human-induced climate change, increased disaster and rapidly changing political economy. 'Many of our members will be pleased to see the investments in GeoNet and Geohazard funding, which is a core area of research for us. We remain disappointed that National Science Challenges have not been replaced with any meaningful new funds to support interdisciplinary mission-led science. 'The majority of our members are social scientists, studying the social and human side of human-environment relations, such as how to transform our economies and societies in the face of ongoing environmental challenges. Recent cuts to social science funding are already affecting our ability to do our research jobs well, and this budget seems to rub salt right into that still-bleeding wound with no meaningful changes to social science funding. 'The focus on funding the commercialisation of research outputs is something that does not really help the majority of our research as geographers. While geospatial mapping applications might be commercialised, much of the other important research on human-environment relationships is not able to be commercialised, but does provide important policy direction. For example, moving towards low-waste circular economies requires the rapid sharing of innovation of systems and processes, not just technologies. The government has overlooked social and community innovation in its understanding of the connection between science and innovation. Indigenous, community and social innovation will play a huge role in moving towards environmental sustainabiliity. 'In terms of tertiary education, it's good to see the final year fees free scheme assisting students to complete their degrees. But the challenges that our students face are usually because neither the student loan nor the student allowance can cover costs of living in most of the university centres. Fees can be loaned but cost of living is capped. The amount students are able to loan for living costs has gone up by just $2 per week, which is not enough to buy a loaf of bread, let alone the butter to put on it. Students are thus working long hours, often fulltime, to support fulltime study. This is having an effect on their ability to meaningfully engage with their education. The consequences for our country are students starting work with reduced capacity to analyse human-environment relationships and to imagine innovative solutions. 'Finally, many of our members will be glad to see funding put into maths for primary education — this feeds into the pipeline for better-equipped tertiary students doing subjects like climatology, hydrology and demography (studying the climate, rivers and oceans, and populations).' Conflict of interest statement: 'I receive funding from the Marsden fund, I have a Rutherford Fellowship, and I previously received funds from the National Science Challenges.' Professor Gillian Dobbie, Chair of the Marsden Fund Council, comments: 'Research funding is a crucial part of building a strong, future-focused economy. Small, advanced economies like Finland and Denmark invest around 3% of their GDP in research and development because they understand that new knowledge and innovation are key drivers of long-term growth and resilience. 'In New Zealand, the Marsden Fund is an important part of our research system supporting excellent curiosity-driven research that aims to benefit New Zealand and New Zealanders over the long term. Much of the research is interdisciplinary and not siloed in narrow domains. Since its inception, the Marsden Fund has supported discoveries that have deepened our understanding across a wide range of areas, from social sciences through to physical sciences. These include how bacteria survive — with implications for developing new medicines and improving agriculture; how viruses and bacteria affect honey bees, helping find ways to protect them from harmful Varroa mites; how animal minds work and what that tells us about the evolution of intelligence; and how strongly the ground shakes in different locations — research that has directly influenced international building codes and major rebuilding efforts in Christchurch. 'The Marsden Fund helps researchers study and work with colleagues both here and overseas, building valuable networks and expertise in areas that matter to our long-term future — like growing a strong economy, protecting our environment, and improving our health. 'While it's important to focus on short-term economic growth, strategic funding for curiosity-driven research is vital. Funding for research that generates new ideas isn't a cost — it's a smart, strategic investment that lays the foundation for a better, more prosperous future. No conflicts of interest. Associate Professors Kristie Cameron and Gergely Toldi, Co-chairs of The Royal Society Te Apārangi Early Career Researcher Forum, comment: 'The Royal Society Te Apārangi's Early Career Researcher (ECR) Forum emphasizes the need for stable and equitable funding to support the RDI sector, and particularly ECRs in New Zealand. ECRs are the future workforce of the science system and play a significant role in increasing international competitiveness of New Zealand in innovation. Their support from PhD level is essential to align their skills with current and future community and economic goals and to improve workforce retention in the sector. Increased funding would enhance stability, improve research quality, support career development, and ensure equitable opportunities throughout the academic career path. 'Moreover, the Forum highlighted the importance of humanities within the science funding system. Recent changes in funding schemes have decreased opportunities for research in the humanities, which is crucial for addressing complex social, economic, and ecological challenges, as well as to support the impact of other disciplines of research. 'The 2025 Budget indicates that the government is committed to increase targeted support of ECRs by more than 10% compared to past budgets in the form of support for research in the form of Fellowships for Excellence and encouraging the career development of the country's talented early and mid-career researchers, in particular for Pacific and Maori scholars. Also, in supporting development of applied skills and knowledge in people undertaking doctoral training. We welcome these proposed changes that are in line with our goals and the earlier recommendations by the Royal Society Te Aparangi ECR forum. We look forward working together with policy makers to implement these changes into our current support system available to ECRs.'
Hamilton Spectator
23-05-2025
- Business
- Hamilton Spectator
Endeavour Announces Results of Annual General Meeting 2025
ENDEAVOUR ANNOUNCES RESULTS OF ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING 2025 London, 23 May 2025 – Endeavour Mining plc (LSE:EDV, TSX:EDV, OTCQX:EDVMF) ('the Company') is pleased to announce that all resolutions at yesterday's annual general meeting ('AGM') were duly passed by shareholders. All resolutions were taken by poll and the results for the resolutions voted upon at the AGM are set out below: As at the UK record date for the AGM (20 May 2025), the total number of issued ordinary shares of the Company was 242,212,493 and there were 103,147 ordinary shares held in treasury. The total number of voting rights for the ordinary shares was therefore 242,109,346. A vote withheld is not a vote in law and is not counted in the calculation of the proportion of votes 'for' or 'against' a resolution. Copies of the resolutions passed at the AGM, other than resolutions concerning ordinary business, will shortly be uploaded to the FCA's National Storage Mechanism in accordance with UK Listing Rule 14.3.6 R(2) and will be available to view at: . CONTACT INFORMATION ABOUT ENDEAVOUR MINING PLC Endeavour Mining is one of the world's senior gold producers and the largest in West Africa, with operating assets across Senegal, Côte d'Ivoire and Burkina Faso and a strong portfolio of advanced development projects and exploration assets in the highly prospective Birimian Greenstone Belt across West Africa. A member of the World Gold Council, Endeavour is committed to the principles of responsible mining and delivering meaningful value to people and society. Endeavour is admitted to listing and to trading on the London Stock Exchange and the Toronto Stock Exchange, under the symbol EDV. For more information, please visit . Attachment
