The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Because this appears to be like chipping away at a stupidity dam, I'll ask the room 'who owns the CGP subsidiary since the merger? Who owned it when Scott said non-dilutive? Surely you're nearly there now?
It seems we have another person who finds the concept of dilution difficult.
Haha, ramoernred calling me stupid means I'm getting something right. Check out the guys monstrously embarrassing posting history- it's both epic and totally devoid of intelligent thought. I think he's forgotten that he once posted excitedly about a trade on Christmas Day 🤣🤣 what a silly sausage
Wow! Copper just hit a 2 year high...
Actually Rodney the CGP subsidiary owns them, but that does not in any way create dilution if they're sold.
Stackhouse is like Quady...stupid at times and prepared to argue black is white rather than concede and apologise.
Finally, there is a highly likely option that you missed:
An offtake agreement, for which there were TEN EOIs in the PFS3...
Could be announced at any time.
Be great if it was $340m, i.e. Solgold's current MCap...
Glad I'm not in, too, given that we're 10% down on the price when our rampers here insisted it was the last chance to get in. But we know fort, slug and novice are thick as treacle, so we disregard their waffle
I'm not currently in, bar a small hedge. Got to get this car crash out of the way first.
Shares in issuance is the key if all the shares are in circulation. If you as a shareholder own, via your ownership of the company, the shares that get sold, you are being diluted. The fact that the number of shares in issue stays the same doesn't change the fact you own less of the company and it's assets, in exchange for cash.
Shares in issuance is the key - just as the Company said. Are you suggesting that the Company is lying? If so, should you be invested at all?
And there in lies the rub. If the company sells shares that you, as a shareholder, used to own via the company, you are being diluted. You still own your number of shares within the 3bn, but you no longer own your cut of the shares the company sold.
SC and the Company have many ways of arranging non-dilutive finance. These include a further royalty arrangement or selling the Solgold shares it owns.
I feel like you're all slowly getting there...
We are not measuring dilution against some arbitrary point in history, it has to be relative to when he claimed funding would not be dilutive. And at that time, Solg (a publicly traded company owned by shareholders) owned those shares.
The Company owns them now.
Who owns them now, Rodney? Who owned them when Scott said his BS about non-dilutive?
Are we of the view that the Company is so incompetent and/or so untruthful that it states a position were shares it owns (not 'shareholders own, the Company owns) this would not dilute shareholders as a group? If we do think this way, why on earth would we be invested? Were these shares to be sold by the Company, the sale of these existing shares is not the same as the issuance of new shares. The shares in question were acquired from Cornerstone as a result of the merger. Cornerstone owned said shares in Solgold pre-merger.
All the whole we are sub 9p. What price do you think the market thinks our upcoming raise is coming in at? Factor in the uncertainty weighing on the price, it still doesn't look like they're expecting more than 10p. Could it be 6p to get away a decent chunk. The shares owned by the company wouldn't cut it at 6p, as that would only raise c. £9m, so we'd probably have to print another 300m or so. Scott is already full of BS about non-dilutive, but that sort of raise really would be a disaster. Price estimates?
The company are not going to label anything as dilution if they can avoid it. Did you ask them who owned the shares when Scott made his statement, Rodney? I'd be very concerned if they claimed anyone other than the shareholders owned them. By that logic, who owns Cascabel? Eek.
As I've always said, if you go by the number of shares in issue, this hasn't changed. If you go by the actual measure of ownership, the number of shares in circulation not owned by the company, placing these shares is the definition of dilution. Sorry to burst your bubble 🤷♂️
Absolutely, SM- it's plain enough that you are happy to be diluted in exchange for cash. 🤦♂️
If you own 10% of a company, and it holds 20% of its own shares as an 'asset', you own your 10% plus 10% of the shares the company owns. This is more than 2%, as effectively there are only 80% of shares in circulation - you and the other shareholders own the 20%. If, all of a sudden, you those shares are re-introduced to the market and sold by the company, you're back to just your 10%. The company has more cash, yes, but you only 'own' 10% of that cash. You have been diluted.
When Scott made a statement claiming no dilution, the company owned those shares. Shareholders own the company. Each holder owns, by association, a proportion of those shares. When they are sold into the market, shareholder's ownership of their portion of those shares disappears.
If you want to claim that the company or a subsidiary owns the shares, not the shareholders, I've got some terrible news for you.
Rodney, thanks. Most of us understand this, but I'm afraid SH doesn't. He simply can't get his head around the fact that a) the shares are already in issue, despite the company stating that they are, and b) the balance sheet affect of selling them.
Of course the other problem is that he's too arrogant to admit he's wrong.
A member of a small group of Solgold shareholders I discuss matters with has been in touch with Solgold about the matter of the Solgold shares the Company owns whether there would be 'dilution' were they to be sold. The reply was that these shares are already issued and accounted for in the Company's issued and outstanding shares so no dilution. So there we have it: the Company states clearly that, it its opinion, no dilution will apply were said shares to be sold.
If I own 10% of this company, I own 10% of the shares held by the company as well as all of its other assets. If the company sells the shares it owns for cash, I own 10% of the cash plus other assets. Is that plain enough for you?
And I won't get caught napping here, add, don't worry. It seems odd that you won't buy more when you have faith in fort's crackpot theories. As I say - deep down you must understand the significant risks but I fully accept that you don't feel able to admit that here 👍
How many of those 3bn shares does the company currently own, add? And who owns the company? If the answer is 'over 150m' and 'the shareholders ' then you're getting there. You'll get there in the end, but it is taking you a very long time...
i admire your optimism addicknt but remember this is a guy who held shares whilst predicting they were sure to go down because he’s so rich he can afford to lose money for “****$ and giggles”
in other words an attention seeking moron
Agreed but Adventus was a minnow. SOLG has a Tier1 mine under its belt plus 60 more valuable licence blocks in ecuador so there is no real 'cheap' way to get hold of it as too many on sidelines will just counter offer not to mention the two super majors sitting on the shareholder list in BHP and NMM.
What is key though is the important red tape events that Adventus had in place... as follows:
1. Investment Protection Agreement for the project in place with the Government of Ecuador
2. Key permits secured, including the Environmental License and tailings storage approval
SOLG have also ticked some red tape boxes but they do not have the Environmental Licence nor do tbey have the tailing sstorage approval. According to Scott, SOLG were drill testing some areas in September last year for suitable tailings. We've not had an update since.
Buyers aren't too worried about buying prior to DFS... but they do want EP's in place and that can't be done until the water storage / waste storage and so on are all agreed.
But in general, I agree with your point that beaten up mining stocks are going cheap now before the metals boom really kicks off. PoG expected to hit $3000 and I think Copper heading to $12000 this year. Possibly $15000 in 2025.