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.
there is a stupid guy on advfn who keeps stating we are running out of cash, have poor prospects of raising any and consequently will go bust.
he is right that we may have only a couple of months cash, and for that reason i believe that funding is imminent.
so here are the facts to justify that statement:
and i have read every word of the following 344 word document, including the independently verified statement:
"solgold has also received material offers of funding in exchange for offtake from a number of traders."
these facts come from the ni 43-101 technical report on pre-feasibility study, published on 8 march 2024 and independently verified by the following qualified persons:
gilles ****neau, ph.d., p.geo
jarek jakubec, c.eng., fimmm
brian prosser, pe
guy lauzier, p.eng.
timothy david rowles, bsc, msc fausimm cp rpeq
richard boehnke, p.eng.
ben adaszynski, p.eng.
carl kottmeier, p.eng., mba
"based on the high level of interest in this quality concentrate, solgold subsequently invited commodity
traders to submit an initial expression of interest, covering:
their intended sales and marketing strategy for alpala concentrate
proposed offtake volumes and tenure
comprehensive commercial terms
ability for short- and long-term financial support
solgold has to date received ten qualifying expressions of interest (eoi). demand for the cascabel
project concentrate from traders was significantly in excess of planned production volumes; as such,
srk remarks that it is possible that metal payabilities, precious metal refining charges and payment
terms could be finalised on better terms than previous conceptual assumptions.
solgold has also received material offers of funding in exchange for offtake from a number of traders."
Forgive me, but I tend to fact-check what redknight says vs. what the reports actually say.
Clearly the Qualified Persons only verify certain aspects of the report. As per the certificates at the start of the PFS document. Separate experts for metallurgy, underground infrastructure, surface infrastructure, environment, finance etc.
Section 2.2 has a nice table showing which sections each Qualified Person is responsible for.
Carl Kottmeier from SRK Consulting is the Qualified Person who has approved section 19 of the PFS, which refers to Sales and Marketing Contracts. Not all 8 experts that redknight has listed.
The PFS also says "the QP has not reviewed any of the Expressions of Interest received by SolGold".
I agree with the text around expressions of interest and offtakes. But have no way of knowing when these were received; report only says since the 2020 fiscal year.
Time for Solgold to address this, by end-May is my guess.
Red I wouldn't worry about what people post on other boards, or this one. I
f you believe SOLG will run out of money, simply sell your shares if you own some, or don't buy them if you don't already hold.
If you believe they'll sort their balance sheet out this month, as I do, then hold any you have tightly or buy some.
You'll either make some money or you won't. Personally I'm doing OK with my SOLG investment but expect to do far far better in the not too distant future. Each to their own and all that.
Well..... lets tale the most obvious and simpliest of non dilutive capital raises and use the CGP 157m shares as an example ... numero 1. So lets say Bob/Scott have already pre-agreed these shares to be sold at XX price. That might be 10% or 15% premium to the sp for the benefit of acquiring a large 5% stake... or additional stake etc.
Now... if you were Bob / Scott... when would you announce the fund raise deal?? Would you announce it when we have $5m cash left or $1m left? Eg... in organised manner or leave it to very last week ot two?? What's the advantage or disadvantage?
Well... leaving it very late means you must trust the entity taking the stock sale very very well. As leaving it to last minute... is very risky indeed.
So... if not selling the CGP shares... what other options are there?? We know there's royalty deals. We know there's stuff in the regionals that could be sold etc etc. We know that any royalty deal that comes in is ring fenced to ENSA which means there MUST be another source of capital raise alongside the royalty stream as per last few years examples.
The disadvantage in leaving it very late (and there's no doubt about it... this is the latest any managementteam have EVER left it to raise cash) is that the market sees uncertainty and a cliff approaching so it marks the sp down. Now Bob and scott know this well and thus they would have a duty to ensure they support the share price... so on that basis... one can only assume that Bob and Scott (and Mr Liu) have an alternative deal lined up. As based on above... there's no reason to leave it late if you plan to sell the CGP shares. So there must be an alternative. Simple as that.
Exploitation agreement rubber stamps and is followed by an offtake is my prediction
Fort I would suggest the CGP shares would command a far greater premium than that for such a stake. I agree the financial update could be multi faceted and even a blind man should see this will all be sorted this month.
Agree - anything less than 16p a share for the CGP shares will be a huge failure by Scott and Bob.
Lets hope we don't need to issue them at all.
After going to the trouble and expense to acquire the CGP shares, why would they now sell them. I thought the idea of getting them was to combine to one attractive company. Do these shares even still exist?
Ben, yes, they do.
Issuing these shares would be dilutive compared to the percentage of the company share holders owned when SC made his statement about non-dilutive. So it can't be that they are going to sell/place any of them- we were promised non-dilutive, right? 👍
There is absolutely Zero chance our management (or any for that matter) would have wanted to leave financing to the very last second… so it’s either a case of they failed to complete the deal they probably assumed they had and have been left trying to secure an alternative, last second solution…. Or there have been so many competing offers of financing, Solgold have been able to have providers one up each other before they choose the one to move forward with.
Given Solgold always underwhelm and disappoint… I’m expecting the former to be the case.
Time will tell.
SH, the shares are already 'issued' and therefore if they are sold they are not dilutive.
But if they didn’t sell them then they’d be cancelled and become relutive.
So one could argue that placing them is technically dilutive. Splitting hairs I know
OC, if they failed to complete the deal, it makes no sense that Chris Stackhouse got awarded options. Presumably he got options for getting some sort of deal in place.
'84, that's right. If the shares remain unsold at the point of exit and are cancelled, we'd own a higher percentage of the company.
Compared to when Scott said fundraising will be non-dilutive, will you own more, less or the same amount of solg's assets if these sell? Clue- it's not the same amount, and it's not more...
During the merger solg became the owner of these shares. It was whilst owning these shares, collectively, as shareholders of the company, that Scott said fundraising would be non-dilutive. Why wouldn't we think he meant 'non-dilutive from our current position (owning those shares)?
I knew you chumps would claim these shares could be sold and, because they are counted in the 3.3bn, that sale wouldn't be dilutive. But I also know that if your company sells something and as a result you own less as a percentage, that's dilutive.
SH, not sure you get this. If the company sells the shares the cash proceeds go into our coffers and count as assets, which we as shareholders own. If you own 1% of the company now, you'll still own 1% of the company when the shares are sold and the assets will be the same. Does this help?
If we still own them at the point of exit and they are cancelled, shareholders will own a marginally higher percentage of the company.
I know Stackhigh would try (and fail) to weasel out of his "dilutive" statement. Next up he'll be trying to spin that placing the shares at 9p or whatever is "massively painful" for shareholders. This will likely precede him disappearing into the ether like a bad smell claiming he's managed to get a good entry for one of his "clients".
Who'd have thought SH was that thick hey Addick 🤣🤣🤣 no wonder some punters are just punters and will never get to the upper echelons that we mix with
Before shares are sold, you own a number of shares out of the 3.15bn in circulation. Ownership of all assets of the company are divided by this total. Then, owing to a sale of shares by the company, you own a number of shares out of 3.3bn in circulation. Yes, your company has some funding. But how was it achieved? By dilution.
At the time Scott said there would be no dilution, there were only 3.15bn shares in circulation because c. 150mn were owned by shareholders.
I'm not sure it's me who doesn't get this, add. If you think selling shares that were owned by the company is non-dilutive then I have a bridge you might be interested in
Nice try, SM. No weaseling here. As you can see, I stand by my statement that there will be no non-dilutive raise, because we are not a charity. If we sell shares that increase the number in circulation, that's dilution. If you don't understand that, it's not my job to teach you.
See? Total absence of any weasel. But you lot are now bricking it about the giveaway that's coming...
And if you think a royalty deal, lessening the amount of the asset you own, isn't dilutive either, then I'm amazed you've got the brain power to type
Add - I don’t think she gets that shares in circulation would not increase so it wouldn’t be classed as dilutive
You can of course argue ANY raising of funds is dilutive! An offtake or royalty affects future profits, a sale of an asset reduces owned assets
The name of the game is getting to the bid point with the most intact, that’s when our investment matures
Just block the twat, i did
Again, slug using the female sex in an effort to be patronising. What a charmer 🤢
The shares in circulation at the time SC made the comment were not the 3.3bn listed, because 160m of them were out of circulation, owned by solg. It was one of the few benefits of a merger that cost solg shareholders very dearly. If they get sold back into circulation, and there are 3.3bn shares dividing the company, that will be an act of dilution.
It's not that tricky add 👍
1984, you're right, he really doesn't understand the concept and thinks his arrogant dismissal of others is sufficient to win an argument.
Just for guidance, SH, the company spelt this all out in one of the documents relating to the merger.