George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. 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.
Hi BNc I always read your posts.
Can we distinguish between opinion and fact please?
Ingo and Lisa did not want to leave.
Berry Street's letter in October 2021 had an impact and if they are shady, why did the Chairman publicly reply to their letter?
As for the capital raise, no company of any standing would flag up an equity raise before doing it...it makes you a hostage to fortune. Note the 9% fall in Solgold's SP yesterday on a day when copper and gold recovered well...BHP up 2%; ANTO up 4%
There was a failed capital raise attempt. Fact.
Yesterday's RNS implied as much:
"In addition to the cash position of approximately US$26m as at 30 June 2022, SolGold continues to consider, and has had discussions with its major shareholders regarding possible financing structures and options to obtain funding to further progress the Cascabel development, including a potential equity raise. "
I respect your opinions but these are the facts.
LM, if BHP do end up owning the company, they will repay the monies immediately - as will virtually any other buyer. But I take you point.
Bozi 09.33am - spot on as always.
Also, only been with the co for 1yr so hardly a key player peeps
You could read it that way Quady but when you consider they are also considering alternatives with strategic investors, that tells me that whatever their funding plan A was, they haven't been able to execute it.
On regional JVs, whilst we'd expect them to be in discussions, how long should this realistically take? SolGold first mentioned speaking to potential partners over 12 months ago now and let's be honest, one prospecting licence is contiguous with another major (and growing) discovery in the country. How hard should it be to do a deal with Solaris and why have we not prioritised getting permits for this licence so that we can demonstrate mineralisation in our ground, should that be a pre-requisite to any agreement?
Not to mention Porvenir - we're surely looking at a 3mt copper and 3m ounce gold project here from surface. How are we struggling to get a partner?
Something doesn't smell right here now I'm afraid.
Lunch, I'm probably guilty of overegging the pudding here, but someone who was Metallurgy Manager for the PFS leaving (not by choice it seems) before the addendum was released does not sit right with me. Key player is a stretch admittedly.
Thank you for your reply Bozi.
On point two, I take it to mean that discussions are ongoing.
I just think that they are concentrating on Cascabel and looking for partners for our other concessions, that's why we have not been in a rush to fund raise ( just my musings ).
Quady - my own opinion is that SolGold are working with the interests of BHP at heart.
Someone on here suggested yesterday that Mather was still exerting influence but I don't believe BSC are referring to him for the simple reason that Nick's interests are more closely aligned to other shareholders (in that he wants full value or as close to as possible) . Moreso than BHPs are anyway.
We need to ask ourselves why SolGold didn't do a raise for further studies and regional exploration upon release of the Alpala PFS? That would have made much more sense than raising into weak summer markets and it didn't require hindsight. Those who weren't transfixed by TMJs "June bid" story asked the question publicly and the market even voted with it's feet in the days after the PFS.
To attempt to answer your point about the attempted fundraise, and please consider the following selection of quotes from yesterday's RNS:
"SolGold is investigating a number of strategic initiatives to provide the Company with funding options for the development of Cascabel and progression of regional projects."
"... SolGold continues to consider, and has had discussions with its major shareholders regarding possible financing structures and options to obtain funding to further progress the Cascabel development, including a potential equity raise."
" SolGold also continues to assess potential alternative funding structures which may involve strategic investors."
Quote two basically confirms that an equity raise has been attempted and the use of the word 'alternative' suggests that other options are being explored.
It's just a question of joining the dots.
Bozi please by all means have a guess.
I still see no evidence we have failed on any fund raise, so on this occasion we will agree to disagree.
I dare say this will all be cleared up by Solgold in the near future.
All the best.
Quady - You have made the assertion that BSC are angered at not being offered a fundraise.
I am saying here and now that is completely incorrect.
There are separate paragraphs in the Berry Street letter of yesterday. One paragraph (the 2nd) says they are disappointed with the attempted raise and management's lack of understanding of capital markets. The next paragraph (the 3rd) says that they are disappointed with how SolGold are only representing a small group of shareholders.
You need to explain your assertion. You appear to have amalgamated their separate points and twisted it into a fairly trivial matter.
My own interpretation is that SolGold have unsuccessfully attempted to raise and that BSC, separately, remain unhappy with the motives of SolGold management. It's unclear in my view who they are referring to. I'd be willing to have a guess but many won't like the answer.
Q, and this from a man who described the outcome of the 2020 (or was it 2019?) AGM, as a "triumph" for Mr Mather, who, if you've forgotten, was forced to resign shortly thereafter.
I'm sure you have many strengths - you keep telling us, so it must be true, but I'm afraid understanding corporate life and capital markets is most certainly not amongst them.
Great post Bozi, spot on I reckon.
Bozi as you know I respect and read your posts with interest.
Berry states they are unhappy about only a few shareholders have been approached.
This is the raise, nothing has failed.
I have printed the letter so addicknt can read it.
There are so many ways to raise funds for the DFS for Cascabel.
Nothing as far as I can see has failed.
If you have further evidence, please post and I will read and possibly reconsider my statement.
Excellent post, Bozi.
I agree, it looks as if we attempted to by-pass existing shareholders which, given the board's previous statements that it would consult with them, looks pretty damn weird and totally misguided. Yesterday's statement suggests we've had to go back with our tails between our legs. As BSC said, our lads appear to have a very limited understanding of capital markets.
On that topic, at the time of the Franco deal I pointed out the cost to the company and I have subsequently mentioned the impact of the accrued interest. It now seems the costs was even higher than we thought . It's no wonder BHP/NCM were up in arms.
The last time BSC put out a public lashing of our board, it was quickly followed by Twiggers remarks pointed at BHP along the lines of put up or shut up…. I am no fan of twigger, and would have had him out at the the last AGM, but I’m very interested to see any public response that may come this time..
The board must surely know they are done for in December
Blimey Bozi ….. now I’m depressed lol
And I agree broadly
On the other hand a third party interest would change everything ….. I’m fairly sure that certain people have been working on it for a while now
OK let's stop addicknt rewriting history, and let's nail DBW's statement to the post.
Both have stated that a fund raising attempt has failed.
Let's remind them of their ridiculous statements in the future, not only through lack of evidence, but also because the RNS states we are raising money for the DFS for Cascabal And Berry's letter states they are unhappy about the current fund raising.
At no point does either document say anything has failed.
Quady - I'm sorry but it's time to read between the lines rather than treating a cobbled together SOLG RNS and the subsequent BSC response as absolute fact.
At the end of the day, you can't solve the problem of you're incapable of working out what it is.
SolGold are running out of cash. We have, at a guess, 3-5 months runway at current burn rates which is based on little more than a care and maintenance schedule.
It is one of the worst kept secrets in the City that a fundraise was attempted.
SolGold confirming that it is now consulting with major shareholders suggests that it is seeking alternative options and that a capital raise has, as is rumoured, failed.
My reading is that we're in fairly major strife here. The ATM is empty and we're unable to just print new shares unless someone else is capable of carrying out a raise on our behalf. That means we're going to have to look at selling off an asset or interest in an asset but our position means any potential buyer has a stronger hand at the negotiating table.
BHP don't need to strike yet. We're about 6 weeks from the real sweet spot and I suspect they know it.
I take no pleasure from this as a shareholder but the coming weeks are likely to be quite perilous. I signposted us a few weeks ago towards the worsening market conditions we're seeing albeit in respect to the financing of Alpala construction but the same absolutely applies to fundraisers for working capital and exploration. You can take the view from BSC that the market has had enough with the treatment of some shareholders over others.
So where do we go from here? I suspect we'll either see a smaller raise on disappointing terms, an asset sale on poor terms or a recommended offer for the company, again on poor terms.
The company's management hasn't shown that it can deliver value for a good couple of years now (since the Porvenir discovery). Hard to see that changing now. We're approaching Hail Mary territory.
Quady …. Basic physics…. You can’t condescend up
DBW you would make a terrible technical analyst.
You cannot read a basic statement.
They don't like the way the fund raise is going about.
Nothing has failed.
They don't like the fact that they are not part of the fund raise.
You have truncated the statements in the letter to try to change the meaning.
However you have failed .
Now try to redeem yourself a little and read the letter.
Dbw, I see that as our latest rns for a raise as the issue not a previously failed attempt.
As Quady has pointed out it looks as if Berry are unhappy with the structure of it?
Either way I think it needs clearing up officially.
"Company’s latest attempt to fund raise unfortunately only demonstrates the Management and the Board’s
lack of understanding of 1) their shareholder base and 2) the basic mechanics of capital markets"
Well there clearly was an attempt to raise .... we don't have the money..... conclusion .... it failed....couldn't be clearer
Ironically it may have accelerated this towards a long overdue conclusion
Seems to me like a half-hearted attempt to raise in the markets, i.e. designed to fail, whereby the only option left on the table is the one they really want; to issues millions of cheap shares to the major shareholders. Sorry guys, we had no other option...
Good grief addicknt read the letter.
No fund raising has failed.
No major shareholder is unhappy.
Only Berry Street capital is unhappy.
Read it and you realize it's the polar opposite of what you are saying.
Letter below:
28th July 2022
Statement re SolGold Plc
Berry Street Capital Management LLP has been an investor in SolGold Plc (“the Company”) since late
2020. We have subsequently added to our exposure through public market share purchases as well as
through the Company’s 2021 share offering.
As an investor in the Company, it has been very difficult to follow a great project being managed so poorly
at the corporate level both before, and after, the publication of the Pre-Feasibility Study. In our view, the
Company’s latest attempt to fund raise unfortunately only demonstrates the Management and the Board’s
lack of understanding of 1) their shareholder base and 2) the basic mechanics of capital markets.
We believe the Board should represent the entire shareholder base and not only a select group who might
be exercising control. Hence, we urge the Board to act fully independently and begin a strategic review
imminently to initiate a sale process of the Company.
BNC, you're right, it shouldn't have become a drama, particularly as we've known more money would be required from the day we completed the last one. As you say, such is the way with junior explorers.
However, it's quite obvious it's become a drama or, more specifically, a grave embarrassment.
It seems that we tried to go down a route which both failed as well as upsetting at least one of our institutional shareholders. This begs the questions, why did we go down that route - whatever it was and why did it fail? The other obvious question is why has the man responsible for our fund raising left the company a matter of hours before this all became public?
I would love to know where CGP stand on all this.