Firering Strategic Minerals: From explorer to producer. Watch the video here.
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.
I read those documents, add. Their intention to sell the shares doesn't change the simple fact you keep ignoring.
Shares in circulation when SC said non-dilutive= 3.15bn
Were we supposed to assume he meant non-dilutive from another, previous, unspecified time? Because compared to the situation we were in when he said non-dilutive, selling these shares would be dilutive. You can tie yourself in knots trying to deny this, or you can team up with slug and start another culture war, but you can't change the number of shares in circulation.
Stackhigh.
I'm a bit confused where you've got the 3.15bn from.
Financial data (e.g. FT Tearsheet) and SOLG's own slides show the shares in issue to be c3bn.
Which is consistent with the May 2023 'Share Capital and Voting Rights' RNS. (I can't see an updated Voting Rights RNS).
Then Solgold Canada sub owns another 5%, i.e. 0.15bn, but I don't think these are in Treasury and not Issued or Outstanding shares?
I'm not selling any of our 3.1 million. Or were you making a general comment?
I'm still waiting to hear from your "solicitor" manchild...
Oh btw where did I directly call you a nonce only place i've mentioned it is here and it's on the solg site you 2wat, never mentioned your name never posted it on GST bb how do you stand now, you to me are all hot air and diarrhea, stop embarrassing yourself in front of adults
==================================================================================================
Novicehunter
Posted in: SOLG
Posts: 9,243
Price: 9.76
Strong Buy
RE: Strategic Review30 Apr 2024 08:20
Ok looks like it's going to be a quiet day regards any SOLG news ...
have a good day all and stay away for the sake of these nonces...
55p Someday soon !!!
================================================================================================
You really are an absolute Twunt with a guilty conscience and always looking for an argument 🤷♀️
you're great entertainment tiny, if nothing else
Good point nmm. Diluting 2.84bn to 3bn is worse than 3.14 to 3.3.
So when Scott said funding would not be dilutive, there were 3bn solg shares, of which only 2.84 were in circulation because 160m were in fact owned by shareholders as part of the company. If those 160m shares get sold, each existing holder at the time of Scott's statement owns a smaller proportion of the company (1 three-billionth rather than 1 two-point-eight-four-billionth at the time of the statement). Hence dilutive. I rest my case
It's really not that tricky, guys. You'll get there 👍
From a desperate X man, like many of us:
June 27th presentation titled Future Copper Giants & it infers Solgold conditions are met to be a giant.The Hannam & Partners presentation infers material news.This requires financing first 2 years as Caldwell mentioned in recent exchanges.We can only assume huge news to drop now
In addition to the US$311 million investment addressed by the current IPA, under the Complementary IPA, there is a commitment to invest a total of US $3.2 billion over the subsequent years in activities related to the Cascabel mining concession.
The Complementary IPA embodies the largest mining investment in Ecuadorian history, highlighting the scale and importance of the Project, SolGold's commitment, and the impact on the broader Ecuadorian mining sector.
SolGold's CEO and President of SolGold Ecuador, Scott Caldwell, commented:
"The Complementary Investment Protection Agreement not only reinforces the protections for our key investment in Ecuador but also symbolizes a deepening of our relationship with the Ecuadorian State. President Noboa's attendance and insightful speech at the PDAC convention were warmly welcomed by the mining community and underscores the significant support of his administration for responsible mining in Ecuador."
Non dilutative. No new shares are issued. It so happens that the shares in question are owned by a subsidiary of Solgold (and may be sold to another owner in due course).
Most people get it Rodney, only one plonker doesn’t
You counting the shares owned by solgold as being in circulation, Rodney? That'll be your error. When SC made his statement, they weren't in circulation, they belonged to the company. One of the few benefits of the merger. But now they are talking about selling those shares so they are back in circulation, so the number of shares in circulation will increase. That's dilution 👍
SH, sorry, you've got this completely wrong. The fact they are held by Solgold Canada is not the point. They qualify as issued shares and as such are included in the total issued shares number. As I said previously, this was clearly explained by the company last year.
You’re wasting your time Addicknt. He’d argue selling a paper clip is dilutive. He’s that kind of tosspot
Don’t feed the virus
Very clearly explained. They weren't in circulation when SC said non-dilutive. So if they are sold, they will be back in circulation and hence holders will have a smaller slice of the pie. Very simple. That's the definition of dilution. I wouldn't worry, add- all of this is moot as SC will know he can't sell them and claim not to be diluting holders from the position they were in when he made that claim. He must have a generous benefactor lined up who will give us the cash for nothing in return 🤣 Either that or he joins the list of people who have said stupid s*** about this company. Remember fast and smart? You suckers bought that, too.
Non-dilutive my a***. Ain't nothing for free in this world, and only fools would believe there is.
Rampant green box twat today! Everyone join me
In filtering the moron and she will find another forum to wind up
Clear as day what this attention seeking twat is after
As for the rest of us, payday is coming
No my friend. I am not mistaken. Issued shares is all that matters. If it were not then BHP selling all its shares would be dilutitive in that they have sat on them for years. Share price times issued shares equals market cap. You may be thinking about free float which is a different matter. Solgold selling shares owned by Solgold Canada is not dilutitive. Of they cancelled the shares, shares issued go down and, all things being equal, the share price would go up.
Correct Rodney but this muppet is cut from the same mould as the other confirmation biased moron, comrade Quady
They can’t see that they’re wrong and even when it’s laid out before them they’ll argue black is white
Block the twat
Interesting to see adikt and 1984 team up.
They say likes attract.
Opinionated never wrong that is.
Also interesting to see the squabbling over dilution.
Adikt told us 3 months ago, the company will never sell them, but if the do it will be at a premium. ( a contradiction in itself).
More to the point, not one of you clowns seem to remember you told us we wouldnt still be here, to worry about dilution.
"ain't nothing free in this world..." indeed, SH. But the shares held by Solg Canada were paid for at the time of the merger, so they aren't 'free'.
Prior to the merger there were 2,476,051,501 Shares in Issue. We then issued a further 525,954,360 shares as part of the deal.
This then gave a total of 3,002,005, 861 Shares in Issue, which includes the Solg shares which had been owned by CGP. Not long after approx 900,000 shares were cancelled (I don't recall the company explaining this), so the current number of issued shares is 3,001,106,975, which, just to repeat, includes the CGP shares held by Solg Canada.
The problem you've got is that you don't understand the difference between the concept of Issued Shares and those which you describe as "in circulation", by which I assume you mean those traded each day. They are not the same thing and for the purposes of calculation of any individual holding expressed as a percentage of the total, it's only Issued Shares which matter.
I'm surprised that someone like you doesn't understand one of the most basic facts of corporate structure. Similarly, as became apparent yesterday, you appear not to understand the movements which occur on a balance sheet when shares are sold for cash.
You're wrong on this question and the sale of the 155m shares will not be dilutive, no matter how much you wish they were.
Incidentally, yesterday you said of me that my character would never allow me to accept that I'm wrong. In the light of this discussion the irony of your comment has not escaped me. Pots and kettles etc.
Rodney, you've neatly illustrated why you and others have got this wrong. If BHP sold their shares it would not be dilutive. Their shares were in circulation, not owned by the company, at the time Scott made his statement. Solg PIs didn't own them. Solg PIs DID own the 160m cornerstone shares at the time Scott made his statement. So if they are sold, there will be more shares in circulation (not owned by solg) than there where when he said 'non-dilutive'. More shares in circulation means dilution. Are you there yet?
You assume incorrectly, add. By in circulation I mean the number of shares owned in solg by everyone except solg. Any owned by solg don't matter to PIs because PIs own a share of solg. If solg issued 1bn shares tomorrow to itself and never sold them (this is hypothetical, to be clear), that wouldn't be dilutive, would it? Because the percentage of the company assets that a PI owns hasn't changed, even if the shares in issue has shot up. The moment those shares were sold to someone else, a PI's percentage ownership of the company's assets would decrease.
Now do you see? If solg owns the 155m shares, as an asset, each PI has their percentage share of them. If they are sold, whoever buys them increases the percentage of the company that they own and the PI who doesn't buy them has less. Now define dilutive...
As I explained to you yesterday, the company and by definition us, currently own those shares. If we sell them we will then own the cash. In other words, we simply swap one thing for another and there's no dilution involved. Not complicated, is it?
There would be another movement on the p&l and balance sheet and that relates to any profit or loss which is made on the share disposal. This would impact the net asset figure.
You've tied yourself in knots on this, perhaps it's time to retire gracefully?
When a company issues more stock, the existing shareholders 'own the cash' but a smaller share of the company. Know what we call that? Dilution.
The fact these would be sold as a fund raise doesn't change the thing you're clearly not grasping, add. 155m shares weren't in circulation when Scott said there would not be dilution. Then they get sold, so we are back up to 3bn in circulation, and each PI owns less than they did when the statement was made. Are they going to use that cash to compensate holders for their reduced percentage? Nope.
Stackhigh You're talking rubbish.
Addicknt is correct.
Let's say you have a company with million shares at one pound a share.
The market capitalisation is one million pounds.
Now you create another million shares.
You sell them at one pound a share.
You now have two million pounds, but the company now is worth two million pounds.
No dilution has occurred.
Keeping an eye on this one.
G.L.A
😉