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.
If BHP dont make a bid, they will sell their shares. I am not aware of BHP holding a stake of 13% in anything. Same for NC, except they cant really manage/afford Solg. So its a BHP/NC JV or NC will sell to BHP and BHP will then make a successful bid, at about 50p. If NM can extract the regionals from this deal, then thats about as good as its going to get for him.
To clarify and hopefully wind up this point. Proof is not something that hasn't happened, doesn't mean it won't. Until we have indications of the actual event, which is observable directly or indirectly observed. It then becomes fact, The proof is in establishing that fact.
Dictionary entry below: evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
Bank of America 83p target - uses $4.4bn as NPV and 50% = 83p10 Sep '20
Once they realise NPV is going to be at 5% discount rate woth gold 50% higher than 1300, NPV and their broker ratings should be closer to 150p excluding all our other prospects. (Assuming funding gets sorted - that’s the 83p basis).
And yes the auction post 12pm was to close over leveraged spread bets - it’s why I never ever spreadbet. Use full stocks only, less stress.
Buy SolGold for geared copper optionality We launch coverage of SolGold Plc with a Buy recommendation & price objective of GBp83. We view SolGold as a London listed copper/gold exploration & development company. SolGold has no producing assets and its main development project, Alpala, is several years away from production. That said, we think that the group’s multiple prospects and first mover advantage in Ecuador are compelling in a world that is short “copper optionality”. Shares trade on just 0.2x our DCF derived NPV. Our price objective (83p) is set at a large discount to our NPV (0.5x) reflecting financing, execution & dilution risks but still provides >200% potential upside. Note, we assign no value to the group’s many other prospects in Ecuador – an industry bidder might not be so conservative… SolGold sees itself as an “emerging copper major”… The Alpala project seems quite “bankable” with infrastructure including power, roads & port already in place. Alpala is just a few hours’ drive along paved roads from Ecuador’s capital, Quito. Low cost (USc5-8/kWh) power is readily available. A rail / road corridor passes close by the site giving access to a sea port. Ecuador has had some challenging government policies in recent decades but of late, the investment climate seems to have turned more positive. SolGold presents to the market as if it plans to build the $2.7 bn Alpala project itself and then proceed with several other projects in Ecuador. … but will it actually build any mines? That said, for a c. $700 mn company, raising $2.7 bn in capital to fund Alpala without additional equity seems challenging to us. We do note that BHP & Newcrest each own c. 13.6% of SolGold. BHP’s (relatively) new CEO, Mike Henry, has clearly indicated his desire to add optionality in “future facing commodities” including copper, nickel & potash. BHP is subject to a standstill agreement until October this year. That said, interestingly, SolGold recently announced a $100 mn fund raising by selling a 1% royalty on Alpala to Franco Nevada. The group is exploring other non-equity financing options.
Miagi, if NM said that a bid from Barrick has not been received, then that is proof. The point is if he has said nothing, then that is not proof. You cannot prove, that something has not happened, you can only prove things that have.
Quady, you state that "you can never prove that something has not happened". That is simply not the case. For example, NM could state that a bid from Barrick has not been received and that would be proof that a bid from Barrick had not been received short of NM lying and risking being taken to court.
Addicknt, you are correct, I have done none of those things, my experience is as an employee in I.T as a technical analyst, problem solver, I have taken part in cooperate decisions on an advisory scale. My more relevant experience is in Finance, and as a part qualified actuary, a career, I changed in early life, to get involved in the first generation of super computers. It's not about winning, It is about evidence and how we base our decisions. I have never said this won't be taken over as you know, but I do base my investment decisions on evidence and facts, and have done more than OK. I have invested for 40 years now, and that is my experience. I fully accept that you, Jerry and others are well versed in cooperate life, and I am interested in what you guys have to say. To understand me is easy, I am someone, who is driven by the facts, evidence and reasoning. It has served me well. My intention is not to upset you or anyone else. I wish you all the best.
Quady, over the past few months I've been trying to understand why you think the way you do. Your position is heartfelt and genuine and I understand why you'd like this to go to production. But it has become clear that your reasoning is flawed and it is so because you've never run a company. You've never been involved in corporate strategy or finance and have no hands-on experience of M&A and certainly not at scale. And dare I say it, it shows. I'm not being rude here - there's no reason why you should have done any of these things - your expertise is IT after all. But your lack of experience is showing. Anyway, you've won - I give up! This debate has gone on far too long and I simply can't be bothered to carry on with it. Victory is yours! Right up until the point I'm proved correct.
Very good DBW, your quite right, I haven't had a VAT inspection, but that is my point, you cannot prove that something hasn't happened. You can accuse people, but if the accusation is not backed by evidence, then it is just an accusation. No proof is offered.
addicknt, that is not the concept of proof, you can never prove that something has not happened, you can only prove things have happened, it is like prove to me that their is no God, you cannot, but the emphasis is too prove that their is one. so you can never prove that something has not taken place.
Quady, we can't prove they have happened and you can't prove they haven't. In other words, your evidence argument is unprovable one way or another, ergo, not worth labouring the point. I'm sure you get the point about CGP? Or do you think I'm wrong on that as well?
addicknt, you don't prove things haven't happened, you prove things have happened, that is the founding principle of reasoning. As for BHP in talks with Solgold, sure why not, but they could have been in talks with Solgold for years, and we have had no announcements, agreed not evidence, but makes some sense.