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.
Mining giant Newcrest has criticised a royalty funding deal brokered by junior explorer SolGold, raising concern it represented expensive financing and was negative for the company’s long-term shareholders.
Newcrest — which suffered a first strike on pay at its annual general meeting on Wednesday — owns a 13.5 per cent stake in SolGold.
But along with BHP, which owns the same stake, the mining behemoths have a fractious relationship with SolGold after the would-be copper producer was forced to withdraw plans to raise cash in July.
SolGold on Tuesday struck a $US50m ($77m) royalty financing deal with Osisko Gold for its Cascabel project in Ecuador which hands it financing in exchange for a 0.6 per cent net smelter return royalty.
Newcrest chairman Peter Tomsett said he was disappointed at the move.
“All I can say is that we’re not very happy this time. That sort of expensive financing really is negative to the long-term shareholders of the company,” Mr Tomsett said.
“All this is sacrificing shareholders in the long term. I don’t understand it. And as you know, there’s been a number of governance issues with that company over time, and our position remains the same. We don’t believe those sorts of deals are in the best interest of shareholders.”
On the face of it, SolGold’s royalty deal is similar to a 2020 deal with streaming major Franco Nevada that provoked a rebellion from Newcrest and BHP.
In May 2020 former chief executive Nick Mather signed SolGold up for a $US15m, eight-month loan with interest rates of 12 per cent, and flagged the prospect of a $US100m funding deal in which Franco Nevada would take a 1 per cent royalty on revenue generated by SolGold from its flagship Cascabel project.
That deal was also described as “expensive” by Newcrest boss Sandeep Biswas, and the pushback from BHP and Newcrest eventually led to the departure of Mr Mather as SolGold’s chief executive.
While Mr Biswas again criticised the funding model on Tuesday, UK analysts said this week the deal with Osisko seemed “fair”.
Hannam & Partners analyst Roger Bell told clients the $US50m royalty deal would help alleviate SolGold’s immediate cash needs, with the four-year buyback option over a third of the royalty interest mitigating concerns that SolGold was encumbering its flagship asset at an early stage of development.
“The terms appear fair, in our view, with an implied internal rate of return of about 9 per cent to Osisko based on the pre feasibility mine plan, released in April 2022, and current spot copper and gold prices,” Mr Bell said.
While BHP and Newcrest are again unhappy with SolGold’s funding model, neither has gone public with an alternative funding proposal for the company.
Orthern, thanks for the transcripts, but as we know, the boards of NCM and BHP pay virtually no attention to us :)
If this company was anything other than an explorer with a huge asset, board disruption like this would be catastrophic. As it is, it's almost certainly to our advantage. Clear the decks of the Productionistas and install someone who actually gets it.
Orthern,
Reading that piece really is the big boys trying their hardest to unsettle shareholders, using media to spread their subtle message, when you have them trying everything little trick in the book, well you know you have something they really want, by hook or by crook lol
Atb
Mather, I don't think there's anything subtle about their messages.
That would be Irwin then Add. Lol
Agreed Mathersfinger I think when the storm calms this will be seen for what it is.
Our two major shareholders are unhappy.
Solgold are running the show.
However would be good to have some meat on the bone about Darryl's departure.
Quady,
The CEO leaving at the speed of light does make you wonder, did the board realise he still had a BHP tattoo on his ars* and a NCM tattoo on his pen*s?
I wonder why we don’t hear from NM and the like complaining about the financing deals struck, it affects them just as much, greed is the name of the game
Atb
"While BHP and Newcrest are again unhappy with SolGold’s funding model, neither has gone public with an alternative funding proposal for the company."END.
And this is why no one pays any attention to what BHP and NCM whine about. Like I said... you have to offer an alternative before you go about saying it's expensive for longer term shareholders? Who are these longer term shareholders then?? Who are the short term shareholders then?? I'm dying to know NCM??
It just reads like sour grapes....and should have read like this... 'We are upset that we couldn't get 70% of ENSA through doing dilutive equity deals and forcing the company into giving us all the equity. It worked for us on GGP but unfortunately SOLG are too smart for us and have put us in our box so yes, we are upset.
That's the topline is it not Biswas?
I don't disagree Mathersfinger.
As I said in an earlier post today. This maybe about the 0.6% offtake agreement.
He might have been in favour of BHP and NCM retaining their percentage so an agreed sale could happen.
However Solgold have been unambiguous, unless we get a full value offer we go to production.
It could be that simple.
After all that explains why we sought funding.
Addickt...their investments in SOLG are small change to them (£50m)...so why all this unnecessary public bleating ?