The latest Investing Matters Podcast with Jean Roche, Co-Manager of Schroder UK Mid Cap Investment Trust has just been released. Listen 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 take your points Bozi.
Voting to keep Scott will be taking a leap of faith that a bid will be made within the next 12 months. It would be a leap of faith because at present, we do not have enough information regarding what is going on with the discussions. Even Warren has moved away from his 6 months sale time line.
Folks should be aware of the situation we will be in if after 12 months, no bid, and we will then need to find a new ceo.
I mentioned the SP Bozi because you previously mentioned it's possible fall as a reason why we need to keep Scott.
You have hit the nail on its head Covgaz. We will be taking a leap of faith that Scott will be able to get a bid within the next 12 months. If he doesn't, we are left with option A).
At least folks are now fully aware of the possible outcomes if we keep Scott and no bid manifest within the next 12 months. The argument to vote for Scott makes sense if the chance of a bid is 51% or better. Back to Add's point that we should have more info so that we can make an informed decision.
Ignore the first point. Misread on my part.
The SP has nothing to do with this Eloro. Respectfully, you need to try and detach your thinking from it.
Option A takes 6-9 months in a success case and longer if no buyer emerges. Option B is harder to quantify because you don't know how auccessful a new CEO would be now and whether they'd follow the Maxit party line.
Option B carries far more risk IMO. You dispense with Scott and Maxit in 12 months time if nothing emerges and then you're looking for folks who just see SOLg as another payday. Joy.
Well , we're not sure Eloro , we could be on the cusp of something , we don't know.If we get rid we start all over again. That's why I think give Scott the chance to get it over the line.
Bozi, for B, I wrote "We spend 6 months to a year"
A year=12 months. Maybe not in NAL's world.
For both A and B, we would be stuck trying to find a new ceo. At least with B it would happen sooner.
All we can hope for is that with A, a bid would manifest. No guarantee of a bid mind you.
Eloro -why does finding a new CEO in option A take 12 months but for option B it only takes 6?
If option A comes to fruition and Bob and Dan don't get SOLG sold then it's a natural time to dispense with all 3 of them (Scott included - they'll have had 18 months - 2 years to sell the asset or company and failed). At that point, you'd have to look at raising the capex and pushing on with construction yourself under new management.
I just don't see the point in getting a new CEO now just to follow the same strategy. Please can you explain how that will be productive in any way given what i said yesterday?
Besides, if nobody buys the asset in the next 12 months they will all be paying multiples more when the copper deficit kicks into gear later in the decade. If we have taken a turnkey asset towards productionin the meantime, all of Redknight's targets will be back in play.
Surely the same 4 years would also apply to option A?
All other things being equal.
Actually, if we wait another year, still not sold, no one would want the poison chalice then.
B could take 4 years , and that's assuming we find someone who actually wants the job.
Add, so the choices are:
A)Give Scott 12 months, and if he hasn't sold solg by then, we vote him out. We will then spend another 6 to 12 months to find another ceo, and then wait for a bid.
The SP will only fall from 8p towards 0p. Severe dilution to keep the lights on.
B)Vote Scott out now. We spend 6 months to a year to find another ceo, and then wait for a bid. Meanwhile, dilution to keep the lights on, and the SP would likely fall from 8p towards 0p.
The time line for option B) would be the shortest, 12 months Vs the 24 months for option A).
SP falling and dilution would be the same for both options. Psychologically, the SP falling from 40p to 7p was more harmful than the fear of the SP possibly falling from 8p to 0p.
Folks now have their choice of A) or B).
Eish - that is part of the problem though. We're not a explorer pure play any more. We certainly haven't been for the last 3years +.
We've been a developer that has run some exploration activities on it's non-flagship assets.
It's therefore not really feasible to measure the company on lbs and ounces of resource found vs metres drilled, particularly when it was clear that no major campaigns were planned.
It boils down to my original question. If you want to see this possibly come to fruition in 2024 then you have to vote and in my opinion you must vote for Scott. Anything else sets the company back or weakens it at a time where the data room incumbents are waiting for that next box tick (phased development plan).
You've got to take into account as well that we're investing in high risk, non-revenue generating junior resource companies. There's always a chance that things might not come to fruition. We're never betting on a certainty with any business and one such as SolGold has its fair share of risks attached.
But I do think, given what we currently know, that the vote at the AGM for the directors is an important one. We've seen company officers potted at the last few AGMs (Mather and Moller) and now it's time to stand firm to get this over the line.
"There just biding their time, with grins from ear to ear."
Nincompoop Aussie Loser, at least I can tell the difference between They are/They're, There, and Their! Yet again you wear your illiteracy like a team colour and your lack of intelligence like a badge of honour:)
Add, Bozi, Covgaz... agreed with most of what's been said here over the last day or so. I also share Forts frustrations, but voting the Maxit gang out at this point would be akin to cuttings ones nose to spite our face. They get my 2mil + votes this year... reluctantly.
On the plus side, like WI has said, Interested parties DD must be drawing to a close now so either way, early next year this will hopefully be coming to a close one way or another. ATB, C
apart from the diehard i don't care what happens i'm voting for no change to the board no matter what.
it would be interesting to see just how many retail investers can actually be ****d to vote.
probably don't even know there's an agm.
we were not, are not, and will not be anywhere near as important as our puffed up chests, easily offended wild theories and lies think we are.
and the likes of eloro, and his email to the solg management giving them a good ticking off,
kind of proves my point.
along with the likes of copperpot, adikt and others, attempting to show there superiority and importance, by ridiculously claiming to be in contact with solg management.
The truth of the matter is, no matter how much we think we're full of ps and importance on this board. Nobody who makes decisions at sol gives a flying **** what any of us think.
And on the question of scotty boy, contrary to adikt and his I'm right and anyone who disagrees is wrong attitude. It makes not one scrap of difference whether we all vote him in or out.
Mather was, is and will run the show regardless.
And whilst he is at the helm, the majors will continue to extract their pound of his flesh.
I'm afraid when he decided years ago, he could outsmart the majors. He picked a fight he would never win. There just biding their time, with grins from ear to ear.
Eish, many of us share your frustration, but we understand the damage that would be done by voting against Caldwell. I think our decision making process would be helped if SC was able to provide a more detailed description of what's going on, but there are regulatory reasons why this isn't possible.
Over the years the company has managed to concoct many acts of self-harm, but I'm struggling to think of anything that has been as serious as a vote by shareholders against SC would be. It would be disastrous.
He needs 12 more months and if we're still here next year with no progress, I imagine everyone will vote to give him the boot.
Good post Bozi, and Covgaz, although you and I have disagreed in the past, your 13:01 post is spot-on.
Gino
I just finished the calculation of my November selection at different dates this month, and below are the results so far, let me know if you can do it better. There is a Thread open every month called "UPS".
To help to understand - mid ( price at the time selected ) highest ( best price since selected ) and the best one, only managed 91.80% rise
Best performing shares ( UPS ) during November
Share - Mid -- Highest - % Change - Rank
Best performing shares ( UPS ) during November
Share - Mid -- Highest - % Change - Rank
QBT -- 1.525 - 2.925 ---- 91.80 ----- 1
RBG -- 2.70 -- 4.20 ----- 55.56 ----- 2
EEE -- 4.30 -- 6.00 ----- 39.53 ----- 3
JOG -201.50 -265.00 ----- 31.51 ----- 4
btw, SOLG is the worst so far of the 8 selected
Eish, this is my opinion. drilling to get some decent results cost a lot money which means issuing more shares. They just want to spend what is left on de-risking so they can sell it . They must be on the right track as Ecuador has issued some permits, Chinese invested more and none of the big guys are selling.
(I am sure. Scott wouldn't mind publishing their accounts to show where the money is going.)
Gino73 ----or is Gina Lollobrigida
What you have not spotted is when I talk about a share is because during the cycles that all the shares have, is ready to move better, not for the long term as your STUPID imagination is portrating.
Take a better look at life, your negativity certainly will take you to the box earlier than expected. GOTCHA.
You most likely talking about years, I only can remember last month one @ 8.72p and in 3 days it went to 9.90p.
Master RSI 26 Oct '23 - 07:59 -
KEEP an EYE
SOLG 8.72p ( 8.58 v 8.86 )
Yesterday large volume and rising, showed a large trade of 26.4 Million shares, meaning the overhang has been cleared.
Bozi, you and the others (Eloro & DBW etc..) make very valid points and arguments. Should we vote for the Board and current CEO? Heck the visible advance for an exploration company mothballed sucks! No drilling anywhere?
This is confusing for me, a PI with a substantial investment here. Because, having been invested for probably 10 years and being an eternal optimist - I have only seen the "positive side", meaning Tier One, lots of excellent tenements, Good ESG policies, excellent Geologists etc...
But like Fort, now really becoming disillusioned and fear I may never see this coming to fruition and slowly dwindling to zero! Not helped by poor communication by Solgold Management in the main.
One kind of feels we are forced to vote for SC and the gang! And this probably angers many of us? So what will 40% plus of the voters who are PI's like me do? Just wondering?
If we get this wrong, we shoot ourselves in the foot! Yet, as always we PI's have no inkling of goings on behind closed doors! Could be on the cusp of a sale OR Majors drawing this out until our bank balance is near zero and we negotiate from a very weak hand.
Just wondering if there are more opinions on this choice. To vote (positive) Or NOT to vote (for this gang!) , thanks Shakespeare!
Interesting that Warren seems focused on the sake of the asset and doesn’t seem to believe that it will be developed by Bob the builder, Quadys civil engineering nephew and a few hundred Ecuadorean bum scratchers?
Colour me shocked
Good post Bozi.
Cheers DBW,
I subsequently saw Warren's twitter response.
Bozi, you have made some solid points. Scott is the ceo. As such, I am sure that he can light a fire under Dan re the phased pfs. Otherwise, why be a ceo if he cannot hold folks accountable?
I hope that I will be alive come December 2024 to read your posts in the event we are still here guessing. Better to find a more capable ceo if we will still be here guessing in 12 months.
As for the SP going lower. I repeat, it cannot get any lower. 8p to 0p is nothing when compared to the plunge, decimation of the SP going from 40p to 7p. I no longer fear a falling SP given where we are now and Scott doing nothing to address it. The only consolation if we do hit 0p would be him also sitting at 0p with us. Folks should be left to vote as per their conviction. I know that I will.
Got a bit more time to share some thoughts.
Right. So Scott Caldwell. The last 12 months has clearly been a checklist, box ticking exercise. Rationalise the workforce, eradicate wastage and bring together the two businesses (CGP and SOLG) into one efficient entity.
Meanwhile, all serious exploration has been put on the backburner.
So, AGM 2024. What is the question? It's simply this:
Do you want Solgold, or Cascabel sold in 2024? In other words, do you want a return in the next 13 months.
If you do, then you have to vote for Scott. You must let the placeholder keep his place. He holds millions of shares and millions of options that are now well out of the money for various reasons. He knows the business having been an investor for as long as many of us on this BB. Lets not pretend SOLG can advertise for a new CEO that will be as incentivised to get the job done.
So naturally, discussion turns to what Scott has or hasn't done these last 12 months. Anything strategic review related can be taken off the table. He isn't leading the strategic review. That's on Bob and Dan. So all this chatter about voting against Scott because the SR has dragged on is just showing how little those people have been reading and listening to what is going on.
Scott is going to be controlling the revised IPA delivery. He'll oversee the phased PFS. He, along with Stackhouse, will have the next financing lever to pull if it gets to it. In other words, analyse Scott for what he can control and deliver and don't hold him up for what he can't.
Also ask yourselves the last time you saw a strategic review with a closing date. You won't be able to. The idea of it is preposterous. You can set all the deadlines you want for these data room incumbents but then you have to hold discussions with those who declare interest and those discussions can go on for as long as they need to. SOLG can draw a final deadline if they like but what happens if nobody has made an offer by then or offered finance by then? SOLG has to then tell the market it can't sell or finance the project. That would be truly wealth destructive.
So be wary of folks making such suggestions. They either don't know what they are talking about or they want the shares to go much cheaper.
It's time for SOLG investors to head into this AGM with the realisation that voting for Scott can make it likely that this will be the last AGM they vote at with the company in it's current guise. Failure to do so, or the decision to vote against, and we're just pivoting back towards the Cazzubbo model. That simply won't work given the CGP and Maxit influence.
Hi Eloro he did elaborate on his answer a short while ago in his reply to China Blue
“Really depends, I would think if there is competitive pressure to move, things can be done quickly. With SolGold I imagine some potential buyers are reworking the mining plan which takes a lot of time. Even once that is done, they will work strategically to determine whether it makes sense for them to bid first or wait for somebody else to start the bidding”