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.
Good luck with that lot and I'm sure there are wiser minds than mine and/or with recent relevant experience.
I took this approach because I was wondering whether they had a special reason to buy the shares in Toronto as opposed to London, because the TSX market for SOLG shares is far less liquid and the paid 'materially' more than they could have paid in London on those days.
And finally I wondered why the transactions were made after London trading hours...?
No wonder all will be revealed in due course.
All observations and opinions welcome...
So what can we conclude?
At the time of the transactions there could not be imminent and certain:
Equity issue
Streaming deal (counts as borrowing)
Corporate borrowing
Offtake agreements (material in the context of a percentage of Total Assets)
Or any material disposal or acquisition
However, none of these transactions may have been "certain" at the time of their share purchases, in terms of the possible timing and or the stage of negotiations.
So we may have to wait till at least next week unless something comes out of the blue, like a takeover bid...
Part 3
Without limiting the concept of Material Information, the following events are deemed to
be material in nature and require immediate disclosure in accordance with this Policy:
Changes in share ownership that may affect control of the company.
Changes in corporate structure, such as reorganizations, amalgamations, etc.
Take-over bids or issuer bids.
Major corporate acquisitions or dispositions.
Changes in capital structure.
Borrowing of a significant amount of funds.
Public or private sale of additional securities.
Significant discoveries by resource companies.
Changes in capital investment plans or corporate objectives.
Significant changes in management.
Significant litigation.
Events of default under financing or other agreements.
Any other developments relating to the business and affairs of the company that would
reasonably be expected to significantly affect the market price or value of any of the company’s
securities or that would reasonably be expected to have a significant influence on a reasonable
investor’s investment decisions."
Part 2
"It is the responsibility of each Issuer to determine what information is material in the
context of its own affairs. The materiality of information may vary from one Issuer to
another according to the size of its profits, assets and capitalization, the nature of its
operations and many other factors. An event that is significant or major in the context of
a smaller Issuer’s business and affairs may not be material to a larger Issuer. The Issuer
itself is in the best position to apply the concept of Material Information to its own unique
circumstances
An Issuer must disclose Material Information concerning its business and affairs
immediately after management of the Issuer becomes aware of the existence of Material
Information, or in the case of information previously known, upon it becoming apparent
that the information is material.
While the policy of the Exchange is that all Material Information must be released
immediately...the Issuer must exercise judgment as to the timing, propriety and content of any news release concerning corporate developments.
Many developments must be disclosed at the proposal stage, or before an event actually
occurs, if the proposal gives rise to Material Information."
TBC
We can be certain that they were not in possession of "material information" at the time of their purchases.
This doesn't mean that nothing is happening, it simply means that nothing is certain to happen in the immediate future.
The official position on the TSX where they made the transactions is:
"Section 76 of the OSA prohibits any person or company in a “special relationship” with a
listed company from trading on the basis of undisclosed material information on the affairs of that
company. Those considered to be in a “special relationship” with a listed company include those who are insiders, affiliates or associates of the listed company, a person or company proposing to make a take-over bid of the listed company, and a person or company proposing to become a party to a reorganization, amalgamation, merger or similar business arrangement with the listed company.
A person or company in a “special relationship” also includes those involved, or which were involved, in the provision of business or professional services for the listed company, including employees."
So that precludes Bob Sangha as well as Scott and Chris.
"Each Issuer must disseminate news respecting Material Information in accordance with
applicable Securities Laws and Exchange Requirements. Issuers listed on the Exchange must
disseminate all news announcements respecting Material Information on a national basis and
must retain the services of one or more acceptable news disseminators to ensure proper
dissemination.
“Material Information” is any information relating to the business and affairs of an Issuer that
results in or would reasonably be expected to result in a significant change in the market price or
value of any of the Issuer’s Listed Shares, and includes Material Facts and Material Changes.
A factual representation concerning a security is material if there is a substantial likelihood a reasonable investor would consider the fact important in deciding whether to buy or sell that security.
Under section 1(1) of the Securities Act, a “material change” is “a change in the business, operations or capital of the issuer that would reasonably be expected to have a significant effect on the market price or value of any securities of the issuer.”
TBC
Give need a shyte some credit at least he is trying to backtrack gradually on being totally wrong
The other two pains in the backside never would
Bbg, your constant, almost pitiful pleading that something is happening in the background,
was pretty much shown to be laughable yesterday. you must of missed it.
wasn't it pretty much made clear that Scotty boy couldn't of brought shares, if that was something was afoot.
Almost as well as “plenty further to fall
Before the car crash finance”
Whilst simultaneously holding long and selling out for said car crash. Absolute burk
SM, once again, making things up.
I never said big business WOULD be deterred.
I did say how does it look, and that they could be deterred. and to be honest, we don't know yet.
but dont let facts stop you from looking clever with the wishful thinkers
Stackhigh, a few days ago: "The UN confirming that this is a violation of the Geneva convention simply cannot be a good thing for the president's chances of attracting investment. There is violence and corruption in lots of the countries where majors invest, but blatant disregard for 'inviolable' international law is a troubling precedent. Majors sign IPAs which are underpinned and upheld by an adherence to international law. They can cope with the occasional coup or assassination, bribery or extortion, because the ruling parties in other jurisdictions are smart enough to adhere to the relevant bits of these legal agreements. Ecuador has just clearly demonstrated that it won't."
Aged well, didn't it.
Shouldn’t really surprise anyone, they are after all both clueless clowns
I thought Stackhigh and Needatooth told us that big business would be deterred from investing in Ecuador after the Mexican embassy debacle? Might it be the case they were talking absolute b*llocks?
Happy days
Fort - Yep, Blind Freddy can see what is happening behind closed doors at Solgold.
Thankfully this holding pattern has a time limit due to our reducing cash pile.
I suppose we just need to remain patient for all to be revealed.
We will know our cash balance in 3 weeks when the quarterly is released.
It's going to be an embarrassing number unless financing is sorted before that..
Poor old ramper bay gold 118 days to 120p and he is further away from his pie in the sky prediction.
Poor old ramper doesn’t look like he’ll be up the pointy end of the plane any time soon.
One wonders if the hope of turning left is a novelty for the poor 🤡, for some of us that is the only way we ever turn…..
Fort, good post, although it's worth pointing out that we are far more advanced than others, who are literally years behind. Mind you, with the funding they have they can catch up. As you say, we mustn't lose our much heralded first mover advantage.
Agree, and we know Mr Liu likes Porvenir ... It's signifciantly more advanced than Titans Linderos project and is perfectly positioned for existing chinese infrastructure.
In my opinion, Porvenir is worth our market cap alone. Gina R has pitched ÂŁ100m cash buy of a decent acreage but it's at least ÂŁ100m cash spend away from being close to Porvenir's status.
So we've had Barrick invest ÂŁ100m via deals for Ecuador blocks with Noboa in Dec 2023 followed by Gina now spending the same for some early ops. Seems like suddenly a few key players are revealing their hands and showing their interest in Ecuador. Without a doubt that bodes well for SOLG... but why hasn't a deal been signed with SOLG and our 60 licence blocks?? Well... that's entirely down to Bob, Scott and team. The interest is clearly there... big time. It's seems Bob, Scott and co can't hit a home wrong at the moment... but still time to get a lucky strike and knock it out the park. But time is ticking on and lets face it... with our major assets, it should be a doddle to sell assets in Ecuador with mining in the country in such high demand and licence blocks virtually impossible to acquire.
We re all waiting Bob... time to deliver before liks of Gina and Barrick start discovering resources bigger than Alpala or Porvenir. We are losing out first mover advantages.
Add, I would understand if the reason was it was too pricey for her. She is on a buying spree with rare earth etc. She already have concessions near us, so one would have thought that that we would make a logical addition to her position in Ecuador. I am not thinking anything on towards. Just curious why her name hasn't been linked to us, whereas folks have been saying that Twiggy might be coming after us.
Yep, I am exhausted waiting here, and concerned after HfH previous post where he didn't came across as being happy. I note his follow-up post where he must have obtained reassurance from the company. I emailed Bob, no reply, which generally mean that an rns is coming and he can't communicate with shareholders.
Plus Cisne Loja falls in the middle of the Titans projects.
The Tital deal is a good precedent for Porvenir
Eloro, as I said, perhaps she thinks she's too late to the party. She's obviously perfectly happy with the sovereign risk and recognises the country's great potential, but as far as Cascabel's concerned there are other players already in situ. Or do you think there's something else putting her off?
I know you're very depressed at the moment, so I'd highly recommend you watch the discussion Jerry referred to yesterday. It'll cheer you up no end.
Add, surely our concern should be why hasn't she shown any interest in us? At least as far as we know. If what we have is a tier 1, then I am curious why she didn't make a play for us.
I wonder if this investment is recognition that she's too late to the party at Cascabel and therefore she's going elsewhere?