We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey 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.
Stop poking holes in his fantasy scenarios…. It must be so disheartening
NMM - yes I get the idea in theory but nobody’s interested in solgold and one of the major reasons is nobody knows about it. How would spinning out even one if the partially explored properties help?
If it did, why not spin out cascabel?
The idea you can raise masses of money without dilution in a non revenue raising early exploration asset is ridiculous. When you IPO something like the post office it has a clear value. When you IPO something that’s 10 years away from revenue even if tens or hundreds of millions in expiration proves it’s worth something you’ll get nothing
It’s akin to setting up a new solgold with zero funds
1984 - generally agree.
But capitalised expenses for the regionals are running at c$108m. A large amount of that will have been spent at Porvenir.
So potentially an IPO of Green Rock would more accurately reflect the value of the Porvenir exploration and MRE.
I think the points are that an IPO would require some capital, and also result in some dilution. redknight was arguing neither would be the case.
How about you both being correct, potentially. Let me try and explain.
Sentiment drives SP, yes ? Value is simply number of shares x share price. OK, investing 101.
If the assets are split in, say, two ways, and this split is seen by the market as being positive ( i.e on one side, the existing discoveries can be sold as freestanding, whilst the other prospects can be kept or sold separately to another party which is interested in them, then the accrued value can be unlocked to create an overall gain in value. )
This has precedent, as anyone who watched Wall St. knows, when, during the 80s, the US stock market was crazily depressed and valuing companies at less than their asset value, so takeover and asset stripping made money for those who bought the businesses at stock market prices, split them up and sold them off in their component parts.
Gordon Gekko was not a figment of Hollywood's imagination.
A similar thing, during a commodities sector depression, could be possible.
So both views can be right. Who knows, until it has been tried ?
Blue Horseshoe loves SolGold ? (tic)
RK, let's put the initial dilution argument one side. If we followed your idea, and let's be generous and say we can persuade the market that newco has a value of 50m ( currently it ascibes no value). So newco has a quote and we now only own 80%, but it has no cash. It then raises 50m for exploration. I guess you can see how we end up owning a minority holding?
So the question is, how does this derive any benefit to existing shareholders and how does it accord with the stated intention of providing us with a cash return?
He’s trying to say that tenements we’ve spent next to nothing on will suddenly be worth £15m if they’re moved into a company and IPO’d
Cascabel is worth money because it’s been explored
The untapped assets are worth almost nothing because they haven’t. You can’t “IPO” something that’s worthless and generate worth.
It’s not the post office or aston Martin you’re offering to the public on a listing
This guy is on a level of stupidity of his own. And I say that having locked horns with Quady
Is a better description 'diluting but value-creating'?
redknight makes his points with such confidence, and disdain for other views, that I genuinely question my understanding of what he is trying to say.
Addickt...its non dilutive for SOLG because its a 100% subsidiary...
Green Rock Resources might have zero liquidity until IPO funds come in but it weould be floated on the back of Porvenir, Chillanes, Cisne Loja and Timbara...
Oh and BTW I've IPOed a plc from start to finish and been GFD afterwards...I also prepared a prospective £860m IPO...
It feels as though we are in control of our own destiny now and it's been a long time coming. With Noboa on side we should be able to determine the best partner for Ecuador and shareholders. Selling more than ENSA seems unlikely unless there is a keen bid. Bob get swinging 🙂
Well said add. I’d have left the final four words off
Let’s take this thing worth nothing and move it over here and get £15m for it 🤪🤪🤪🤪
RK, yes, I have. Your thread title states 'non-dilutive funding...' I'm simply pointing out to you that it would lead to dilution, which you appear to have accepted.
You talk about issuing 15/20 % to the market, how is that not dilution? And who on earth is going to be interested in a company with zero liquidity and how does it benefit us shareholders.
In my opinion, you're barking up the wrong tree.
Sounds like red has been reading Ponzi Schemes for Dummies
March 16th I posted:
"I pointed out that the SP isn't 10p and that moderation is required before ordering the fast car. Am I wrong? We all know that with Scott at the helm it's more likely that the SP will snap back to 5p than continue increasing. Facts."
Well, it would appear that the decline has started.
All talk and no outcome with our Scotty. I fear that next year this time we will still be here waiting, and waiting!!
1984,
My post on 13/03 I said exactly that, buying after the bell low price, encourages buying first thing in morning, then they sell through the day for profit or just even roughly
At least I’m not the only one thinking like that
Atb
Have you ever done an IPO addickt...
We own 100% of Green Rock.
Yes it would need some seedcorn to establish itself and pay the NOMAD and flotation costs but, typically you issue 15/20% of Green Rock shares to the market, lets say for £15 million which then starts tro fund the development progtamme for the projects it owns and from which the parent can be refunded all the inital costs.
It doesn't in any way dilute us as Solgold shareholders, but it puts a value on resources that the market is valuing at a negative amount at present because it is nowhere near even valuing Cascabel at the current share price.
So the three projects can be funded to develop with no cost to us, so that we can focus our spending on everything else.
Good to see Citi have a good relationship also with Newmont, including Forrest
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/dataroom/potential-northern-star-interest-in-newmont-assets/news-story/ed36a1644f337c6fd773d919a6c58ac5
It was kat’s theory that the same holder is washing shares back and forth to manipulate. I don’t recall the exact details but what I see on L2 supports it
Whoever is doing it was absent during the huge volume days but now appears to be back
1984,
I don’t have L2 any more, but that sounds about right, sells within reason matching buys but normally over a few more deals one way or the other.
It seems we have the perfect storm for a bid, just don’t know when
Thanks for your thoughts
Atb
IMO a trader indentifier or code should be alongside every order placed for transparency so we can see visually who has which positions
Im not allowed to post L2 data but if you have it, look at all the bids an asks the same size
21,376 (5 each bid and ask)
20,109
21,239
Then look at the time stamps, they are always moving together on both sides so we can be confident it’s likely the same placer
Seems to be buying/selling the same amounts of shares for what reason?
Cheers DBW,
1984, what have you got that might shed some light on my question, cheers in advance
Atb
Quady plays for both sides allegedly
Someone playing both sides …. Allay 20k odd
Ask 1984 he’ll send a screenshot shot . I can’t do it in the pub
Just looking at this sp, roughly last couple of months it’s averaging out about 8p give or take a few fractions, what is the daily average of sp and time taken to form a bid price, just wondered as I’ve read quite a few different opinions.
This is definitely being kept here in this range, just be interested to see other people’s opinion
Atb