The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen 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.
DBW - the company year reason provided earlier is very likely to be spot on. You wouldn't want a completely different remuneration policy getting introduced mid year.
I might well be wrong but nothing else to see here as far as I'm concerned.
FWIW my opinion is it’s an amendment in anticipation of a sale of Cascabel, being by far the most valuable asset.
Also, with regards the selling of other assets (and I'm referring to non Cascabel /Porvenir here), I think I'd be right in saying they're not worth very much at all.
There hasn't been a significant discovery, no reportable resources etc. Whilst soil sampling and rock channelling has been positive across a number of them, they are too early stage to be worth anything significant.
It's worth bearing this in mind when almost baying for the company to be carved up piecemeal.
The tenement package was put together en masse in a land grab. The priority areas were identified and now the lesser priority areas are being handed back slowly. Result should be a more manageable portfolio of fantastic prospects. Completely and utterly the correct strategy. Far too early to be talking about selling subsidiaries IMO.
Addinct I agree with that but what’s still nagging at me ( other than the Mrs) is the need to get this through in a hurry by calling the first EGM in 12 years. By doing that it probably drew more scrutiny and raises the question why couldn’t this wait until December (AGM) …… because something is going to happen prior to that
Fair enough Quady not sure I've understood what you're getting at.
Addicknt has summarised it all quite well in his last two posts.
Have a good weekend
Addicknt - agree with your 8.10 post.
To conclude: if our boys want to get rich quick, they are now going to have to do something considerably more radical than flogging a minority stake of our prime asset. And that is a very good thing.
SharketMare you first state my post, then you write that it is wrong while stating I am correct. I am really confused. Yes of course they would not benefit from the lower percentage, hence why would they sell a lower percentage. Just because I didn't state that, I doubt anyone on here could not say that was naturally implied.
Bubble, I'm not sure I understand you. Surely, all someone would need to do is to offer for a higher percentage of whichever asset is being sold; they wouldn't have to increase the implied price? You could argue that a higher percentage would demand a greater value, but I'm not sure a bidder would see it that way.
I think we're getting a bit tied in knots on this. When you boil it all down, the proposed resolution would have allowed our management to benefit from what would have been a sale of a minority stake. I found this objectionable and voted accordingly; it also appears some of leading shareholders felt the same way.
I'm glad they've backed down, but am disappointed they tried it on in the first place. We are meant to be improving our governance, the proposal was the polar opposite.
These events happen regularly in Ecuador and the reason for the fall in share price has very little to do with this in my opinion. More to do with wider markets and the fact that SOLG were almost invincible over last few weeks while rest of market fell apart. When the likes of Blackrock or Norge Bank take their foot off the metal and hit the breaks, that buy volume or lack of it is soon felt. But both these large entities were strong buyers in the 33p to 35p levels and that's where majority of the big orders get printed. Getting large stock chunks out of pi's hands is not easy but moving the price down 15% has certainly got a few handing them over.
New CFO starts next week. EGM at end of week. News likely in-between and then we start to see the sharp end approaching fast. Ironically, the market position right now is perfect for a BHP bid or Twiggy gina type entity. Pitch an offer in the right area and they might get a bargain as battered investors decide to cash in chips. When all is well and bulls are singing, you really don't want to be a big M&A buyer. You want to be a seller.
"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."
If my understanding of this morning's RNS is correct, none of this is accurate. We can still sell off below 50% of any asset we own, it just means that (if we don't reach the 50% threshold) it has no impact on the directors' LTIP/Bonus.
Separately, whether we sell off 30% or 50% of an asset, I fail to see how a greater number would be "attributing a higher value". The valuation is totally separate to however much of an asset we decide to sell.
Addicknt yes increase their offer
2Luke we are going to or have valued the 20 tenements we have up for partial sale or on a complete basis. Which means these are included. Cascabel may I remind you is now progressing towards DFS.
Only for change of control on assets of ‘book value greater than 50% (fifty) of the book value of the assets, rights and properties of the Company on a consolidated basis ‘ Only Cascabel would fall under that.
Q, this is simply a question of management reward and has nothing to do with defence mechanisms, diverse books, or any other such thing.
It seems to me as if our board were predicting the partial sale of Cascabel and that the percentage they had in mind to be sold was 30%. This would have triggered the bonus scheme and they were trying to persuade us that 30% represented a change of control. Of course, it's no such thing as our boys would carry on running the show, but with a lot more cash/shares in their back pockets.
I raised my objections to this sort of thing when the details first emerged and I most certainly won't be changing my vote.
Bubble, I assume you mean they increase the percentage offer ?
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 ??