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.
I've emailed my contact. Let's see what drops...
Addicknt it is harder to sell in part because of the diverse book and other defense mechanism's. If we want to sell off tenements, then we will need to sell a larger share or maybe 100%.
Therefore we will be attributing a higher value, and as such maybe will be used as part funding of Alpala and Porvenir. Hence this is about part funding and not about selling our flagship projects. I see this as a continuation of selling off of 20 tenements that Solgold have mentioned in the past.
Addicknt it doesn't imho they just increase their offer
Unusual few months DBW now this before an EGM,the stakeholders and our holdings will be used again soon I think if in fact the bid for cascabel is revised upwards let's see or j/v like Quady says
Q, how does it make a bid harder?
Bubble this has nothing to do with a bid. In fact quite the opposite. It's to ease the path to production, by making a bid harder.
Well done Fortissimo.
When will these guys finally get their corporate governance act together?
Although we didn't spot it, it's clear that the major interested parties spotted a naked attempt at self reward. When you look at it its blindingly obvious.
Caught with their trousers down trying to work a flanker, having to own up to it 6 days before the EGM and having an embarrassing amendment to approve at the meeting.
In fact I'm surprised this didn't need 14 days notice.
If the overall motion had been voted down, because of this 'trick', they would either have had to hold another EGM, defer it to the AGM (so why the haste anyway...because the new FY starts the day after the EGM...) or have two disgruntled new employees.
The good news is that this points to either a proposed JV for Cascabel, or Porvenir, or even a possible IPO of Porvenir/Green Rock.
The bad news is either for the new Directors if a 30% stake sale in anything had been proposed (someone cleverer than me can advise whether one of the smaller projects would qualify) or for us giving up 51% of one of our prospects rather than maintaining control.
All comments welcome.
No idea …… but what doesn’t kill you ……
DBW/Novice bounce ??
Well that did it ,now let's see if they decide whether to bid at a higher price or not for cascabel ,well done us shareholders who vented our disappointment along with the major stakeholders
At odds to many here I think this civil unrest may well work in our favour. The more of these events we can “come through” the stronger we become in the long term
Someone gaining 30% at PFS stage means we get bought out cheaply. So 50% is more desirable, as it is unlikely our partners will sell out their holdings for less than they are worth.
Fortissimo, not quite the same thing.
Fortissimo that makes no sense. We are at the PFS stage, so original figure of 30% is the bottom end. This adds to our defence of the company, and this clause will go or be replaced as we progress towards production.
If someone like BHP acquired a 29.5% stake or rounded up to 30% stake, then they are forced to make a bid. So 30% level if often seen as a 'change of control'.
'word' should read 'board' on last post. Further to that post, if the incentive scheme is to attract new talent ahead of development then in theory it becomes a P45 security bonus. It limits the company's ability to explore JV's or another asset deals that fall under 50%.
In short... you get your awards only on an asset sale or deal that sees the board 'lose control' as no one will do a deal on a 50 : 50 basis. There's always someone that requires control and that's major number is 51%.
SM, agreed, it does make it look as if they are predicting such an event.
On the broader point; when has 30% ever represented "change of control"? It was a try-on and frankly, a rather shabby one.
Thank heavens we have some major shareholders who've got the power to exercise this sort of veto.
Weird one as it kind of incentvises management to self capitulate to gain their awards as if they vest on 51% going to another party then it's 'loss of control' for them. I can see why SOLG thought 30% was better suited to this point but also see the dangers that they could farm out or JV and retain 70% interest control yet still bank the awards.
So to be blunt... I suspect it's BHP and NCM involved again and they want the word to be incentivised to hand over the keys! I guess we all do really! But at the right price.
It seems odd for some of our shareholders to find that clause so problematic if an asset sale wasn't in the offing?
My reading of the clause is that the LTIP/Bonus would have been unlocked if the company decided to sell an asset that accounted for 30% of its total book value. This figure has now been upped to 50%. Is that right or have I misunderstood?
Agreed Addicknt, I certainly made my view known to Solgold, as it looks like many others did.
We could be in for another rum day today folks.
Please bare in mind if a bid is incoming over the next few months (as most of us believe) the current volatility in spot prices & political unrest is irrelevant.
The futures bright.
Damers.
it seems that some of our shareholders didn't like the money for nothing scheme.
Correct addicknt, we will always have these corrections.
FT article on why copper price is suffering. With increasing likelihood that the US will sink into recession we have to hope China ends it's Draconian COVID lockdowns soon to get demand moving.
https://www.ft.com/content/f211f1e2-e080-4d31-96c8-7a0599da77a9
bubble it hasn't "spread"to TSX, it's just the exact same movement - 29p equivalent