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 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.
Hi addickt...this was the point that you wanted me to address:
"I believe dividends can be made in certain circumstances where an accumulated loss has been incurred and is done so by an application to the High Court. " and...
"The audited balance sheet is presented in a different way to that of UK companies and I'm assuming it's drawn up in accordance with Aussie regulations? Specifically, they don't seem to 'balance' it in the way we do.
However, and this is where it relates to yesterday's discussion: The company has accumulated losses of several hundred million dollars, but the 'Equity Value', as they describe it, is positive to the tune of $395m, much of which is accounted for by the Share Premium entry.
In my understanding, the fact it's positive would, technically, allow a dividend. Of course, any such dividend is unlikely for years, unless a partial disposal is made, but is my thinking correct?"
I shall answer the first here but may need to run on into a second post for the second.
My primary source will be ICAEW of which I am a Fellow, having practised both Audit and Accounting and Finance.
I assume we can rule out 'distributable profits' until 2032 at the earliest...
"Directors should consider whether there are losses arising since the date of the accounts that have depleted the distributable profits available at the date of the accounts. If there are, then the directors should not pay or propose a dividend out of distributable profits that no longer exist, as this would breach capital maintenance law."
'Distributable profits' are:
"The profits of a company that are legally available for distribution as dividends. They consist of a company's accumulated realized profits after deducting all realized losses."
So even if Solgold were to make a net profit from 2026, this must first be set against all the accumulated losses, which have arisen out of annual administration, operating, exploration and other ancillary costs in the years since SOLG inception in 2005 . These are shown in the Half Yearly Report released on Feb 12 as $141.392 million (and remember its Solgold we are talking about, NOT Alpala, because the parent is paying the dividend. Q may have overlooked this.)
By the way, Solgold is London listed so the Accounting has to be in line with British and International Accounting Standards.
I'm not sure what you mean by "they don't seem to 'balance' it in the way we do". You may be used to 'side and side' Balance Sheets but the 'vertical' approach used in the RNSs has been common for many years. You will see that 'Total Assets' and 'Total Equity and Liabilities" are exactly equal in the Quarterly Financial Report in Canada and similarly in the RNS Half Yearly Report.
I agree with everything you say Lunch Money and sadly, having reviewed every presentation and webinar on Youtube and Twitter, every PEA, MRE, NI 43-101 and corrections, I have come to the conclusion that the RNS on 15 September not only clarified things finally, but gave a clear direction to management as follows:
"SolGold acknowledges the defaults raised by staff of the OSC as a result of its review. At the request of staff of the OSC, SolGold will address these through the removal of references to the superseded PEA and filing an amended MRE#3 on SEDAR. It is expected the amended report will be filed by the end of September 2020. As the 2019 PEA results have not been carried forward in the new technical report, SolGold will not refer to the 2019 PEA results in ongoing public disclosures and reiterates:"
The sad thing is that this action was almost certainly triggered by a complaint by CGP to the OSC, severely embarrassing the Board and all of us shareholders.
This note was restating an instruction given in April 2020 and yet presentations were still being prepared and given up to July 2020 and beyond, either with the incorrect information (3.6 years) or, more euphemistically ("very fast payback")
Unfortunately our friend on here who worships at the shrine of the senior individual concerned, took every word as gospel rather than you or I, spotting the anomaly some time ago and then checking it out in the PEA itself.
This was the original correction in April 2020
""As a result of the completion of MRE#3 and the impending release of the NI 43-101 technical report, the PEA will be effectively superseded by the MRE#3 technical report as the current technical report on the Alpala Project and should no longer be considered current." (SolGold news release 7 April 2020)"
I believe the intent was to get the SP up towards the NAV, but ultimately the persistent disappointments, the 'demotion' and the Board taking the reins have ultimately had the opposite effect...
Thanks Andy...made my day.
I can assure you and everybody else that I mean no malice, but...
Its just like Trump...I won't accept the posting of complete rubbish that could adversely affect the judgement of decent posters on here.
Also I won't accept blatant insults when the insulter is blatantly in the wrong and systematically either fails to acknowledge that, but especially to not apologies.
That is ungracious in the extreme.
A typical narcissist is often a bully...they can never be wrong...they will argue black is white...misconstrue or, misquote or manipulate somebody else's opinion to fit their own myopic view of the world...accuse others and otherwise attack an individual rather than their constructive arguments...etc.
I apologise that I have ever stated my qualifications or experience on here. It has only ever been done to validate the facts, opinions and research that I post. To be fair, the person in question has done the same, announcing that he was a trainee actuary and implying or stating that makes him excellent in numerical tasks...
`but he then goes on to expound on Accounting, Finance, Corporate Finance, Treasury, Legal and other topics on which he clearly actually knows little, sometimes supporting these opinions with something he's dragged from the internet that he then demonsttrates he still doesn't understand.
My charitable conclusion is that, because he's so desperate to be righty in his opinion that Solgold will take Alpala to production, he will collate any arguments, opinions, false data, misquotes, attacks and insults to defend his position.
Everybody knows mine:
Solgold will be unable or unwilling to take Alpala to production on its own.
Either they will need a joint venture, they will need to sell it, separately IPO it or ultimately be vulnerable to a bid for the company that very few of us would have contemplated even as recently as November.
But in the aftermath of NM's 'confetti' communications; 'shock and awe' presentations (delivered in a monotone and inability to meet almost any deadline, the Board and its Alpala Project Committee have taken control.
The upshot is better governance, more openness, a further delay but with an absolute determination to assess all options and attendant risks and then to deliver solutions that are in the interests of ALL shareholders rather than a narrow few.
How do I know this? Because I am in regular communication with informed persons.
Meanwhile, having read the entire PEA I am certain that the PFS exercise will clear up anomalies, thoroughly review everything, recalculate as appropriate and come up with a viable, attractive evaluation of Alpala as a basis for Financing.
The trouble is that the scale of it, for a company with a MCap of £470m inevitable means we will need help.
PS I haven't forgotten about you addict.
Hope this helps...AIMO as usual...E&OE
Max/Zoros hi -I have retained a small holding here but have given up on the blinkered self-obsessed posters on this board. They are in denial about GGP and simply will not acknowledge any rounded well balanced view, you are wasting your time with them. GLA MFU
You are indeed correct when you say "...the Graph on page 409, it actually shows the breakeven on cashflow in year 8 after PRODUCTION...".
I was surprised to see cumulative cashflows only turning positive in the 8th year after production commences, so 13 years from project commencent. Particularly given this is for the 50 Mt/a 'FAST' Ramp-up scenario.
I'm struggling to reconcile this with the 'less than 4 year payback' statements we're read lots about. Scratching my head to be honest.
I'm still optimistic given increase in spot metal prices since PEA, and potential mine re-design to reduce Capex/Opex and accelerate production. Guess I'll need to wait for PFS for more clarity.
I have much enjoyed your exchanges with Q.
It is so good that someone has taken the trouble to do some proper research into our company to show what rubbish he talks. When he replies to posts he seems to deliberately misunderstand the contents or perhaps possibly is not capable of proper comprehension of them (I wonder if English is not his first language?).
I loved the the definition you posted of a narcissist - I think the writer must have used Q for a case study.
Please keep posting.
Max - absolutely right. Good opportunity to buy into both. GGP will make you much wealthier this year and Solg will make you much wealthier this decade ;)
Crewtime - calm down sunshine. I know you've been here 10 yrs now and waivered from pillar to post about ramping and deramping the stock but try your best not to comment on a stock you know nothing about (GGP) because it shows your ignorance.
I am long and strong Solg - don't fret.
I actually holds both stocks and see some similarities in the SP weakness of both (with different reasons....)
Good opportunities to add/enter in both atm IMHO. Making the most of it myself when I can.
Using your theory, you obviously are not holding any SOLG!
So jog off
Morning TBTT and Crewtime - are you invested in GGP?
If the answer is no - then move along.
If yes...you should know better and be very very happy indeed with what is about to happen @ GGP, especially after last nights podcast with Sandeep.
Ironically...several posters compare the two companies for various reasons.
Here's one to add this morning:
Whereas Solg has delayed its PFS further, GGP has now formally brought theirs fwd by 3 months to this September!
This is a pre cursor to pouring 'first gold'...and at the lightning speed NCM are drilling and constructing, this could now happen by Q2/22.
That means from discovery to production in 4 years!!!
[Putting it another way: From 1.5p to forecast of 66p in 4 years].
How long is it now with Solg..................erm?
I should add that having the technical ability to pay a dividend is very far from actually doing so.
The only way we'll see a divi this side of 2036 is if we dispose of assets along the way. In other words, and this is how the conversation started, this is not an operational divi stock in anything other than the very long term, which will never arrive.
Q, no I'm not. I'm asking a professional's opinion on the structure of a balance sheet which is unfamiliar. I pointed out yesterday how a dividend can be paid in the UK when a balance sheet is negative.
RICH3R, basically addicknt is admitting that a dividend can be paid in the early years, as I asserted, I am signing off today, as watching the budget coverage.
Its only 3 weeks before that smoke belches out!
Lets hope we have a great leader this time
morning red i think you may have burst Quady's bubble !?
addict...I haven't forgotten you...there is a simple explanation but, unlike Quady, I am going to look at the documents in detail before coming back to you with an opinion...
Don't hold your breath for an apology from elsewhere mate...he's like the kid with his hand in the sweaty jar...he will deflect and obfuscate until the cows come home to avoid admitting error...
I have tried for months to be patient, using facts and rational argument and even apologising when he once pointed out any error...
I believe that is fundamental to the integrity of this board while we wait for white smoke from the Solgold chimney...
First of all...thanks Lunch Money...you've actually read the PEA and confirmed that it takes 8.5 to 8.8 years from start of construction to break even...
So even assuming construction begins in 2022, that means it will be well into 2031 before breakeven...
However, if you look at the Graph on page 409, it actually shows the breakeven on cashflow in year 8 after PRODUCTION..., so that takes us to 2036...
Quady keeps quoting the PEA as his defence against the dividends argument that addict put forward but, despite being retired and having the time to post 4,807 times and rant at decent people, he still declines to do the decent thing and read the PEA or even scroll down to page 409 and then apologise to addict.
And then he compounds the felony by resorting to insults and untruths again by posting:
"As an ex CEO you seem to roll over at the first hurdle and say woah is me, we have competition , we better sell the company fast, as I don't know what to do."
There is no evidence anywhere on any of my posts to support that last statement.
Well he's had 3 months of turmoil in them to decide they are a dead dog!
I'd say John Cornford's analysis of Greatland was sober and correct. There is value in the company, but much less than its current mcap.
I hope he's right about Solgold. But I think we may have to wait for Nick Mather's departure to become official (and perhaps for round 2 of the Ecuador elections) first.
"...Quote from John Cornford 9th Dec 2020: " I’m no expert on Geatland so readers should take no notice of my opinion of its value ..."
The man has no fecking idea what day it is half the time....
I was just going to ask if all have seen John Cornfords article in Master Investor
He sees SOLG bouncing, lets hope he is correct, I've looked at his past record and he does seem to be pretty accurate with his analysis
My RNS senses aren’t tingling I’m afraid Crew. I don’t think much will be released until mid April.
In the short term however, Solgold (LON:SOLG) will probably stage a bounce from its current depressed level and I think has more potential in the very long term. But I can’t say the same for Greatland Gold (LON:GGP), whose shares I think have seen their palmiest days – at least for some time.