We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey 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.
Well he doesn't owe anybody anything, he's just a guy tweeting about the situation like you and me. I would suggest he has been generous and accurate in his (legally) limited commentary, offered take-it-or-leave-it.
irwin distancibmng himself from the 78p forecast.
"Nice side step ;) ok, let me rephrase if it helps… would you be surprised / disappointed if Solgold stepped down from their 78p+ indication of fair value expectations (recent presentations)? Thanks
irwin
"You mean the prognostications that were made by people who are no longer with the company right?"
RK …. Totally agree this is 100% T/O any IPO, if it happens, will be after the event
I've countered your case.
We'll never agree.
It would have been a good idea a year or two ago and indeed I suggested to Ingo that they should IPO Porvenir...
But in the current fraught cis=rcumstances and people's desperate want for monetisation it would take far too long and the SP woould fall further during the process.
Look how long its already taken to try and put the merger to bed...7 weeks and counting...and still nothing announced
I didn't say shareholders were taking a gamble. I said nobody from BHP down to me wants unlisted shares.
Please detail your current relevant experience. And show me where I don't understand current corporate law and corporate finance.
Meanwhile, here is the source you asked for under the heading "Taxes"
https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/newsletters/2022/january/17/dentons-global-mining-guide/dentons-global-mining-guide-2022/ecuador
Its not a "free roll of the dice"
We have an Interim CEO and CFO. We have half a Board. We have no Director of Corporate Finance.
Have you any idea how much it costs in time and money to do what you propose.
I prepared an IPO and it cost us £14 miliion and took a total of 18 months.
And its not 'free' when the portfolio you are talking about is conservatively valued at $150m by the Company Brokers.
Nor is it free if you IPO at a value of "£20-30m" and your Ecuadorian taxes are £29 million...
That’s a fair point Bozi considering I only assign a nominal value to the regionals… the difference would be negligible.
You could easily argue that investing in exploration companies is essentially all about those ifs… and maybe whens…. and you would be right. But I didn’t invest in this one until after the Cascabel discovery… and I just want an exit due to investor fatigue and disappointment.
For what it’s worth, I’d love Reds multiple players bid scenario to play out… we will all make great money, I just don’t believe.
The failure to deliver the PFS and Porv PEA stinks to them simply not stacking up as hoped to me, so they have been buried.
Red - I do have experience. Relevant current experience. You have historic experience as we've all been reminded for the hundredth time.
As I've said two or three times this afternoon, there is no transfer between limited companies. A demerger will be achievable by adjusting the SolGold corporate structure.
I'll ask you again. Please can you show me some Ecuadorian legislation to substantiate your statements? I also implore you once again to review the Atlantic Lithium transaction.
Besides, why are you getting so hung up about tax. Are you endorsing not taking a value accretive path because there may be a possible tax liability. How ridiculous.
Your ISA issue is admittedly more of a sticking point for you personally.
Shareholders aren't taking a gamble on an unlisted stock. They're early investors in a company that would be brought to market with a respectable porphyry discovery.
Look Red, we won't agree, but thanks for the discussion.
I'm sorry Bozi, but thats just your opinion.
I have put up facts and practicalities and you just think I'm being awkward.
Why don't you summarise my key points and show me where I'm wrong?
You can't just shrug your shoulders when you've been so adamant on a hypothetical situation.
Yes me saying there will be a takeover bid(s) is an opinion but its supported by all the key players who are actually in the know.
Why do you think the decks have been completely cleared...?
How does your idea fit with the decision to suspend everything except the Cascabel DFS (timed for December 2023)...?
Orthern - that's fine.
All I'm trying to say is that the difference between a full SOLG sale and a sale of just Cascabel will likely be negligible, so spinning the regionals out is effectively another free roll of the dice with very little risk.
It shouldn't harm the return we get from Cascabel in theory at least.
You're entitled to your view of course. I just must disagree with it.
So in answer to your question:
I've voted for everything and everyone, especially Nick but against Twigger and Clare
What a condescending clown Redknight is.
He has switched positions so many times with Solgold without any evidence.
Now he is telling everyone what the tax situation in Ecuador is without looking it up.
Give it a rest Coco.
Are you finding this interesting DBW?
You're with me on a takeover aren't you?
Have you got any experience to back up your categorical statements?
Have you actually done what you're talking about? I have.
I'm also a Chartered Accountant and have been FD of a major Financial Services company.
(Sorry everyone else).
I'm talking about paying tax in Ecuador, where the licences and the operations are.
Not Corporation Tax on SOLG profits.
And even in the UK: "Assets can be transferred between two separate limited companies but it should be noted that Capital Gains Tax (CGT) will be payable by the recipient company if the assets are transferred free of charge or below the fair market price."
Now you say Newco could be spun off into a company that would IPO for £20/30m.
I say again. Why would SOLG shareholders take shares in an unquoted company and gamble on a successful IPO?
Would you? I wouldn't, especially because my SOLG shares are in an ISA and Newco wouldn't qualify. Furthermore the only way I could sell them would be back to Newco.
meanwhile, you clearly haven't read the latest Brokers report which puts a value of $150 million on the regional portfolio.
You see you're making the same mistake as Quady. You have a good idea and therefore it must be right and you have to find a way to justify it.
I'm simply responding with the facts and the practicalities.
CGP and Mather now have an armlock on SOLG. There is no way they would go for yoru scheme with delayed rewards when a successful takeover brings them maybe a 5 bagger or more, within weeks or a few months.
And if it was me I would approach the bidder to buy the regional portfolio and put it in a Newco then or even the DGR stable.
I can follow the logic of what you explain Bozi. The only negative in that route for me, is the large amount of ifs involved.
There are no guarantees of finding any more large mineable deposits…. I prefer to be on the more realistic/cautious side, compared to many when it comes to presuming future discoveries.. But there are absolute guarantees of hundreds of millions of spending commitments.
I’ll take my swifter, lower exit point and move on.
Orthern
If the regional assets stay in SOLG and SOLG is sold whole then they carry no value unless an auction happens and things get tasty.
You yourself appear to not like the chances of this and I'm along your line of thinking.
If they get spun out I think you could IPO the company for £20-30m, probably next summer. Small change. It would like a new explorer being born in the junior markets with a mature cow being carted off to the slaughterhouse, to excuse the anomaly.
The value then grows as NewCo PEAs and PFS' Porvenir and more so if they make a new significant discovery at Helipuerto or the likes of.
Then depending on how things are looking, you can then spin the regionals out again and just sell a mature Porvenir, or you can explore developing Porvenir, obviously with the same arguments taking place that we've had about SOLG.
Porvenir will hopefully be a friendlier asset to develop though given it is from surface.
Just one last point. Look at Solaris. Worth considering why they have done the very same thing with Warintza. Why?
Because it's the best way to value creation. That's right Red.
...
OldCo, to repeat myself, brings the likes of Mitsui to the table who are said to be interested in Cascabel only. That adds further competitive tension.
I'm going to close it there because nothing I say will get through. You'll just continue with your straw man arguments, and it's painful because they hold no water at all.
Red,
Wow, what can I say. You don't think my idea maximises monetisation but yours does? That is really some strange thinking. My idea does exactly that, whilst yours only achieves that if a bidding auction materialises, far from a certainty.
In terms of making tax laws up, where have I done that? I didn't really want to do this but here's the stuff about the CGT exemption - https://www.gov.uk/tax-sell-home
If SOLG slides a holdings company in above the 4 subsidiaries holding regional licences then no reorganisation needs to happen. There's essentially a carve up. SolGold stays as is with Cascabel, Blanca Nieves etc and the 4 subsidiaries move out under the NewCo, which gets renamed.
It has nothing to do with what the major shareholders would accept. BHP, Jiangxi and Co will get what they are given. You don't see Assore, Sumitomo and the other big Atlantic Lithium shareholders complaining about holding stock in Ricca Resources. Take it from me as an investor in that company-they're not.
You could even infer that one of the reasons the Porvenir PEA has been halted is to not confirm a value for that project ahead of a potential spin out, not that I believe it would matter for the reasons mentioned. Ownership of Porvenir wouldn't actually move from it's subsidiary (Green Rock is it off the top of my head), but Green Rock itself would move. You're just going to have to accept that the tax argument is a red herring you're using to try and talk down the option.
We haven't been trying to sell regional licences. We've been trying to find partners to help prospect them. Completely different. SolGold cannot sell licences that it has been awarded. They expire at the end of their term and SolGold can either re-apply or let them go back to the Cadastre for potential re-distribution.
"
Finally, on any disposal of assets (and selling a new company containing all the non Cascabel assets) would carry those assets with it; the transfer to the new company is treated as a disposal for tax purposes."
This just isn't true. Please substantiate this.
It doesn't delay anything. SolGold can still be marketed for sale now if that's what the objective is. SolGold can just run the demerger in parallel or early in 2023 if taking place after completion of the Cornerstone transaction. They can prepare the holding company now, like Ingo did with the financing company a couple of years ago. Its all straightforward and you know it.
Cont...
30p by friday is like saying we going to production go figure
What happened to 30p today from the number one jester?
:)
Good afternoon Anon3 they still have time to put out a meaningful RNS explaining to Investors in plain English what is the direction they are taking.
In which case I will vote.
What I won't do is vote blind.
How much value would we expect for spun out regionals?? Given they come with a 400 million dollar spending commitment.
Any monetising event is going to be underwhelming if we are Hoping for close to full fair value, based on Solgs original PFS in my opinion.
Quady, if we can't support our board, what's the point in remaining invested?
I totally get what you're saying, but the inference is that if you vote against, you're inadvertently voting in favour of the big boys.
You just have to trust the board to want what's in our favour, I feel.
Red Irwin busy on Twitter
Interesting stuff
Bozi
First I don't think your idea maximises monetisation. Its unnecessarily complex and slow.
Next. You cannot make the tax laws what you want them to be just to argue your case.
"It is then this company that gets demerged from SOLG plc."
So first you've got to go through a reorganisation.
Then you still haven't answered my challenge that any shareholder, including BHP, Newcrest, Blackrock, Jingxiang, you and me would accept unquoted shares in a company with assets valued at zero.
But they're not valued at zero.
Porvenir has a value which will be ascertained by the PEA if it ever gets done.
And if the other regional projects are worth zero, why has SOLG been trying to sell them for m ore than three years and why have we retained the licences.
Finally, on any disposal of assets (and selling a new company containing all the non Cascabel assets) would carry those assets with it; the transfer to the new company is treated as a disposal for tax purposes.
The whole thing delays the monetisation of the assets probably by several months.
Do you honestly think CGP are recommending the merger to sign up to such a convoluted scheme which simply delays the sale of the whole entity.
No I don't want to own or trade shares in a near worthless entity which will still need to raise $100s of millions to develop those assets without the backing of Cascabel as collateral to that funding.
And as to "a bidding war that might never materialise" you know my views on that.
But if it may never materialise for SOLG why would it materialise for Oldco and at what value...?