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:
You will only have one login account. Registering with multiple accounts is not allowed. Any user found to have more than one account on this site will have all, and any future accounts suspended permanently.
Your email and password must only be used by you. If a post is made under your account, it will be considered that it was posted by yourself.
Your account nickname must not be the same, or contain, listed company names or board members' names.
While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate; rudeness, swearing, insulting posts, personal attacks, or posts which are invasive of another's privacy.
You will not;
discuss illegal or criminal activities.
post any confidential or price sensitive information or that is not public knowledge.
post misleading or false statements regarding the share price and performance. Such posts are deemed as market abuse, and may be reported to the appropriate authorities.
post any private communication, or part thereof, from any other person, including from a member of the board of directors of a listed company. Such posts cannot be verified as true and could be deemed to be misleading.
post any personal details (e.g. email address or phone number).
post live price or level 2 updates.
publish content that is not your original work, or infringes the copyright or other rights of any third party.
post non-constructive, meaningless, one word (or short) non-sense posts.
post links to, or otherwise publish any content containing any form of advertising, promotion for goods and services, spam, or other unsolicited communication.
post any affiliate or referral links, or post anything asking for a referral.
post or otherwise publish any content unrelated to the board or the board's topic.
re-post premium share chat posts on regular share chat.
restrict or inhibit any other user from using the boards.
impersonate any person or entity, including any of our employees or representatives.
post or transmit any content that contains software viruses, files or code designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of this website or any computer software or equipment.
If you are going to post non-English, please also post an English translation of your post.
If you are going to post non-English, please also post an English translation of your post.
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 and Verified Members
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East and have access to Premium Chat. 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.
"why do you think BHP will be happy to sit back and watch their £75m investment be diluted to irrelevance? "
I was about to pose Quady the same question on a separate thread. Personally I do not think it beyond the realms of possibility that BHP / Newcrest get so p*ssed off with the way NM decides to fund building the mine (and their holdings being diluted more and more over time) that they sell up (when profitable to do so) and remove themselves from the situation.
Much more likely, I believe, given the quality of the assets and the rarity of such discoveries today (let alone the geopolitical issues, the importance of securing commodity supply for the long term) is that BHP - at some point - makes a move to take the lot.
Also I expect Solg could raise the finance to take our discoveries to production but at what cost? I would imagine BHP only have to whistle to raise finance at really tight margins which our little company could only dream about!
Q, you say people have never given you answers to various questions posed by yourself, but I believe I have, and you should note I don't recall ever saying finance couldn't be raised (stand to be corrected). But dare I say it, you have never answered the absolutely fundamental question I've asked you on numerous occasions, which is; why do you think BHP will be happy to sit back and watch their £75m investment be diluted to irrelevance? And in the light of yesterdays announcement, why would they let the Chinese barge in on the party? There is no logical answer to this other than they won't. No amount of wriggling can escape that inevitable conclusion. They didn't get involved with this company to sit back and watch someone else get full advantage of the considerable capital they placed at risk - it just won't happen. Until you can satisfactorily answer this key issue, your argument is fatally impaired.
agree. And anyway, what's the point for the largest chinese copper producer to own a tiny $5M stake of SOLG? There MUST be some discussion happening behind close doors. Could it be that NM plans to flog Alpala to BHP and Porvenir to the chinese?
atg, let's assume there are considerable penalties involved - 1% of the total. All that would happen is that a bidder would take this into account when placing a value on the company and would reduce their offer accordingly. In other words, we get less. Mind you, in our context this is a drop in the ocean and is unlikely to play too much of a part. If someone wants us, they'll go for it regardless of a CFP.
It is not that black and white, ask a lawyer. Anyway, signed preconditional finance package makes it messier and less attractive even if not a total impediment to bid. Still makes it high risk Pperiod now, imo.
Morning Iceberg I am in agreement, that things are hotting up, and I think the direction of travel will be clearer in the new year. As for the AGM, I think it will be calmer than most people think. Maybe Solgold expands on the detail a bit more. I am surprised that we get the AGM before the PFS, but dare say that was just circumstances. Anyway this is not boring. All the best.
It's not about fair play, it's about regulation. The one element that is pertinent is that of fees, especially exit and penalty fees. I come back to my point, we've just completely altered the complexion of the board and if they don't do their job properly they should be sacked.
Have always believed it could go it alone and be financed. The question really was, would they be allowed to? I am still not sure of the answer, anything can happen here. That is why smug certainty of outcome is extremely foolish.
Addicknt I agree we cannot use history when looking at Solgold, as we are making history. I think this is so unlike any company I usually invest in, as it's breaking all the rules. The good thing is we both have to be wrong to get an adverse outcome, which is possible, but again I would argue, an unlikely outcome. All the best.
Morning addicknt, this is just another indication, when I first mentioned, we could raise the finance and go it alone, I did so by understanding various methods, in which this may be achieved. I was shouted down. With statements like I didn't know what I was talking about, and that it was crazy, and no one would give us the money. Not forgetting I know nothing about cooperate finance. I considered those arguments silly at the time and still do. The point is I was shot down, but no-one said why I was wrong. They just said I was wrong. That is a good indicator of the opposing argument. Today more people are thinking, we may be able to finance this. It's not the majority opinion, but it is gaining traction. Why? It's because we are actively pursuing this.
ATG, yes, I've raised the 'poison pill' issue before. Once upon a time this was common practice, not so nowadays and it's down to the corporate governance of independent NEDs to ensure no such arrangements are entered into. They are value destructive and must not be allowed.
Q, I do the same with some of yours. The problem about your 'evidence' argument is that it ignores some of the fundamental elements of investing, which is all about trying to predict the future. In order to do that, you have to weigh-up probabilities and likely scenarios. It's always highly unpredictable, but that's the way markets work - which I don't need to tell you. If you simply rely upon historic events as your guiding principle, you are doomed to failure.
Quady, I would say though that solg have put a time limit on it, as per my agm post yesterday, this is a highly charged list of atm resolutions, it's a back us or sack list, a get on board of stay at the station list. If approved it gives Nick the ability to give 30% of the company to Franco or barrick or the Chinese, diluting BHP and newcrest to below 10% and there is nothing they can do about it. It's a decision point. I agree that solg can take it alone, imo They want to plan the route q1 next year, take alone or JV..but Nick is setting the agenda otherwise newcrest will wait or year or two and BHP wait until q2 or 3.
Addicknt, we all have confirmation bias, the trick when it comes to investing, is recognising it, and looking at the evidence. Some people recently were getting tick ups for being racist, it's a nonsense. The people aren't ticking up an argument, they are doing so, because it disagrees with me. I actually tick up a lot of your posts, even when I disagree with you, as I think the argument is well made. I believe on the balance of probability that you are wrong, just as you believe I am.