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.
BHP
RIO
China Shenwa
Glencore
Vale
Southern Copper
Freeport
Fortescue
Newmont
Zijin
Bayan
Anglo
Maaden
Grupo Mexico
Barrick
etc...
But actually...through various vehicles...?
The Chinese State...
Look at that...31 consecutive trades between 7.76 and 7.92, totalling c42,000 shares at an average of c1,400 shares per trade...
And so far truning a profit of c£500...
What is the point...?
Don't tell me theres no manipulation going on...
In my opinion the share price is where ot is mainly because of three fundamental factors:
1 There is poor liquidity. In all my stock market experience, even without Autobot expereince, the price always drifts down, partly because of lack of interest but mainly because the institutions and similar buyers simply cannot buy enough sharwes to make it worthwhile.
When one private investor can push the price up 10% by buying 829,000 shares, you know there is no liquidity.
2 The Autobots. I am now convinced of the view that at least one interested party is using AT trades to keep the price down. The trades are largely for menial numbers of shares, but when you have a succession of sell orders at slowluy descending prices you know there is something behind it.
And its too easy for them because they either close later in the day or the UT does it for them.
3 Nobody want to be the first bidder.
BHP is an obvious prospective bidder, I think Newmont is not...at the moment.
BHP got badly burned in Noront and had to limp away. Bob Sangha ran the successful Wyloo campaign. And by the way, Noront was trading at 15c in 2006; it spiked to $4 in 2008 before falling back to 70c; then spiked to $2 before falling back to 20c in 2013 and traded in the doldrums down to as low as 12c before it all kicked off in 2021, ending at $1.10.
But why would BHP or anyone want to be first bidder unless they pitch it far higher than the current SP and prepare for a battle? Almost certainly with the Chinese.
And the same goes for increasing a stake or buyingan initial declarable stake.
The purchase itself would drive the price significantly higher (the obverse of Berry Street Capital's sales) and any Holdings announcement would undoubtedly signal intent, leading also to a sharp price and pushing any starting bid even higher.
In conclusion, FOMO drives modern marlets, but people get suked in on a story by greed or ambition. Solgold has the potential to change many of our lives.
It has been a long haul and patience understandably has worn thin. The natural target for people's anger is the CEO and Board of Directors for failing to fulfil Sangha's inflated expectations.
So I believe, in the absence of a bid, the PFS3 will come early in 2024 and it will then be 'make your mind up time' for bidders, if they haven't bid before...
Fort wants us to listen to his ramblings about inconsequential PI votes at the AGM he ridiculed others for suggesting would ever happen. We were so certain to be sold in the run up to, or just after, the last AGM that this one was laughable to even imagine.
And here we are. And here he still is, still being wrong. Same for red- writes essays believing people should listen to him, but couldn't see that we wouldn't sell in 2023. These chumps are weird, and best ignored IMHO.
Fort about 12 months too late again. Horse bolted long ago.
Deary me.
So BHP, Newmont and indeed any of the other majors established or wanting a strategic foothold in Ecuador, have a decision to make.
Some may already have decided there is no point. Wyloo has Noront to digest, for example.
And the question for any of these majors, with the Chinese already having a foothold through Jiangxi/Valuestone (and who knows, other companies may also be in the dataroom), is what to bid and when? Or also walk away.
And that brings us back to the battle between the Chinese State and the world's big miners. The latter will have seen the rapid development of Chinese interests and acquisitions acrioss the planet, especially in Africa which, to all intents and purposes the Chinese 'own.
The majors dare not let the Chinese become the dominant force in Ecuador, nor in copper/gold markets worldwide.
Why?
Because the obvious outcome would see the Chinese gobbling up assets across the planet at prices the majors are reluctant to pay, resulting in their resources depleting and progressive damage to their bottom line...let alone credibility.
And this whole debate would be much easier if the US saw metals and minerals, especially 'green' minerals as strategic.
They already see REMs as strategic, but China already dominates and is moving that way with 'green' metals. Look at lithium. Europe is going to have to exempt battery metals from their import restrictions because itherwise their car industries will die.
So what do the majors and especially BHP and Newmont do.
For Newmont the decision may be easier. They didn't buy the Solgold stake. (Newmont is American. Barrick is Canadian. BHP is Australian)
If BHP decide not to pursue their interest, their stake is biddable unless they want to be 'spoilers'. But they can afford to ask a very high price of the Chinese (although lower from another bidder). So what sort of price assuages their regret? £1 would do it, but 50p might.
Newmont would likely accept a lower price unless they see Ecuador as strategic. Acquiring Solgold would achieve that and at a fraction of the $16.8 billion they paid for Newcrest.
But at the end of the day it all comes down to who will make the first bid and at what level?
And that, in my opinion is a major reason why the SP is where it is.
My final post examines that last point.
Fort, they're not denying access to the AGM - we're welcome to attend if we happen to be in Brisbane!
Too long to read as well.
Maybe it’s a kind of coping mechanism like poetry?
He deals with the loss of his amg merc by vomiting mindless nonsense all day every day.
At least others had automation to make that task more efficient!
Who is Redknight posting these messages for??
He has everyone filtered.
So which majors, why and for what reason?
Lets start with BHP and Newcrest.
It seems certian to me that BHP made at least one bid approach to Solgold, culminating in their attempt to secure a deal giving them up to 70% of Cascabel.
Newcrest was first mover and, seeing the possibility of competitive tesnion, Nick Mather successfully played them off against each other, with shares sold at up to 45p.
Their continuing interest in Cascabel was clearly demonstrated when they both reacted violently to the Franco Nevada deal:
Newcrest withdrew Craig Jones from the Board (against his wishes0
And they and BHP pubnlicly excoriated Solgold for 'diluting' their resource.
If that didn't demonstrate serious intent at ultimate owenership of Cascabel, nothing would.
But now both have a strategic decision to make.
Do they write off their investment or do they follow through?
Newmont particularly have a decision to make, with Newcrest to digest and, to a lesser extent BHP have to integrate OZ Minerals.
And BHP suffered a very public bloody nose when Wyloo knocked them out of the park witb what some might say a ridiculous overpayment.
But with the Chinese in town and depleting respurces, that is the new ballgame.
Clearly the Chinese would find it difficult or even impossible to acquire mining assets in either Canada or Australia, for strategic reasons that would very probably involve the governments, but Ecuador appears to be open field and it is not only the brightest new prospect in South America (an extension of the Andean Belt riches and a far more stable government than Argentina, Venezuela or even Chile or Peru), but it is also 'open house' for bids with the Government determined to cash in on its prospective riches.
And at the end of the day, pragmatism rules, when it comes to cash.
But on what terms?
I think a likely clincher would be if the Board were able to persuade Jiangxi to sell them back most of the 90+ projects, leaving a new exploration vehicle, not short of funds, ready to seek the next Alpala...
So thats the Chinese. And indeed it may be fruitless to consider any other possible bidder. After all, why would the Chinese State invest a mere $40 million or so to acquire just over 6% of a company with a MCap currently c£235m.
It makes no sense...they don't punt in markets...it only makes sense as a strategic foothold in one of the best undeveloped copper/gold prospects on the planet...it also gets them 'inside' with enough information to determine a bid.
But wjat about the rest?
For them Solgold/Cascabel is only strategic for corporate purposes...securing resources for a future where 'green' metals are already scarce. The majors may have allowed their mining resources of, especially copper and gold, to deplete, but in the past they've always been able to rely on hoovering up Juniors who have done all the hard graft to prove up resources, but who don't have the scale or the financing capability to mine them.
There are two countries, however, where such mining is more strategic...Canada and Australia.
While neither government takes an interest in such resources for strategic reasons, seeing them more as a revenue source (hence the Australian govt supporting coal mining...), there is a strategic imperative in keeping the Chinese 'out' of their mining industries.
And beyond restoring their depleting mining resources, their is the 'big beast' factor to take account of...hence BHP's purchase of Oz; and Newmont's purchase of Newcrest...plus of course the ego factor, e.g. Andrew Forrest, Gina Rinehart etc.
But one might expect that the BHPs, Barrick, Newmont, Rio, etc would be more likely to balance a number of factors:
Depleting resources;
Complementary and synergy with existing mines;
ROC and EBITDA;
Country presence;
But especially ROC and EBITDA...
And yet Rio got itself expensively involved in one of the other major global copper prospects...Oyu Tolguei...and has continued to the bitter end, at great expense for prospectively the world's biggest block cave mine in inhospitable territory.
Surely thats an indication of how desperate the majors are, or may become...
I should add that if you vote now, SOLG will see your votes. They will be keeping a close eye on things. Some brokers allow you to change your votes within 4 or 5 days of the AGM but you best check if you plan or see anything from these twonks that demands a turn around in voting.
Shooting yourself in the foot is by voting for them not against them. No one can get away with a low ball or cheap offer here as the shareholdingss are in favour of CGP and Mather et al. So voting them down will just bring a swift end to this debacle. We only need a starting bid... can be 12p for all I care... because no one on sidelines will let this go for less than market asset value.
If a mint condition ferrari was on ebay right now for £1... do you think it would sell for that?
It's time to force their hands, and that includes the buyers involved. If the chinese are tyre kicking... then they'll soon bang in a bid if they see their main discussion partners booted... we need to upset the apple cart here or else we'll be here for another 12 months with an sp of 3p. It's going to be hard to see the SP above 4p by Q1 next year if these CGP boys breeze through this AGM. The market has zero faith in them. They are out of the depth and flagging. They are running our cash pile down to zero faster than anyone thought likely. It's unbelievable to watch.
Vote Maria and Mather back in but the rest of the CGP boys who think this is now their business ... just vote them down.
The arrogrance of these guys is one of the main reasons I have turned bearish on management... but I'm bullish on the assets. Trouble is, the former can damage and devalue the latter and that's why I'm furious at these useless t055pots.
No management team would expect to be voted back in after spunking $70m when apparently they were supposed to be reducing costs and what's worse is that they have delivered zero for that cash.
Now, many will remember Scott and CGP boys mantra of years of woeful poor under performing management and that was pointed at Mather and his old team. Now they come in and deliver worst share price in 7 years, more cash spend, zero exploration... it's an utter shambles and folk on here think their only option is to vote them back in??? It's not. Vote them out and you'll see them deliver something faster than you though possible.
Isn't it illegal to prevent shareholders from access to AGM?? These guys are destroying this company through poor management and ignorance. They all need the boot.
Would like to believe that but we are at 7p and going down.
30p now will make it for me.
Rcgl2, I was not aware of no remote access till your post. I think it is appalling. Until now I was just not going to vote but now will vote against all board reappointments. Happy to cut my nose to spite my face .
When considering when or who will bid for Solgold...and at least one party will...one has to consider the mindset of prospective bidders...their rationale and determination. Because nobody is going to start the process with anything other than a determination to win.
And therein lies the rub...
For the company it is relatively easy...
What is the minimum starting bid we will consider?
What is our BATWA (best alternative to walking away)?
For bidders it is not so easy. As I have said before...only a 'knockout' bid will prevent a bidding war here, between at least two parties.
But even determining a knockout bid is not easy.
From the point of view of the bidder it has two aspects:
What is the absolute maximum we are prepared to pay?
What price do we seriously believe Solgold would feel unable to reject?
And this is why I believe Jiangxi have the upper hand.
Because Jiangxi is, to all intents and purposes, owned by the Chinese State.
Which means Solgold is prospectively strategic for at least two reasons:
1 China is seeking to dominate all 'strategic' metals (especially 'green' such as lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper, REMs and eventually tin, which is used in every soldered joint, in every electrical and electronic device)
https://www.mining.com/web/china-tightens-grip-on-copper-key-to-worlds-energy-transition/
2 With the 'Belt and Road' initiative coming under challenge (Italy has just withdrawn and a growing number of countries are resentful of the blackmail China is able to exert as they crumble under a mountain of mainly Chinese debt), China needs to grow its influence in South America.
They have previously had an armlock on Ecuadorian oil.
They have some 'strategic' stakes in Ecuadorian mining (the two Chinese-owned projects are the San Carlos-Panantza and Mirador mines. Both mines are currently owned and managed by Corriente Resources, a subsidiary of the China Railway Construction Corporation-Tongguan (CRCC-Tongguan) conglomerate. The latter is wholly owned by the Chinese State through both subsidiaries).
While there has been some resentment in the past against the Chinese, the Ecuadorian government needs some 'quick wins' in terms of generating revenue and the Chinese are renowned for building construction projects quicker than anyone else; they also would have a readymade need to take 100% of the metal production, especially copper.
China has also been rapidly growing its vast gold resources, as it seeks to trigger the demise of the dollar.
So what is the level of a 'knockout bid' that Solgold would find it hard to turn down?
Nick has always given the clue... "Asset Value not Market Value"
Which, with metals prices recovering and prospectively rising higher, is surely in the range £1/2.
In fact, I believe at £1 other bidders would not want to be drawn into an auction with an unknown upside and, in te absence of anyone else, surely the Board would have to accept.
But on
What have we been reduced to!!! Sad and frustrating, even with the upcoming agm, we have to 2nd guess / speculate reason behind how it will be conducted...last year cap in hand for our votes, this year, I'm alright, Jack! It is what it is, but.....they must be confident for a happy resolution for all interested parties (and us), surely.
Lth
I have always thought that a rising SP is a manifestation of the market acknowledging that a company's business objectives are being met. So, if not the SP, how else can a company demonstrate that it is building shareholders value? After all, selling the shares is the only option available to PI to realise their value. Not sure I understand the logic of discounting the SP where shareholders value is concerned.
Roxi, I agree with your comments about getting on with the job, but I'm not sure I'd describe wanting to attend an AGM as needing a comfort blanket. It's more a case of good investor relations and simply announcing the outcome of the resolutions isn't.
Personally, I like to see the body language of the directors and the tone of the meeting. The 2020 meeting told me everything I wanted to know about Mather and Twigger and confirmed my view I'd made the right choice to vote against NM.
Anyway, for whatever reason, they've made their choice and it is what it is.
I just think on a point of principle and in terms of good corporate governance it's not great for a UK registered company with it's main listing in London and secondary listing in Canada to hold its AGM in Australia with no remote access option. It's frustrating the vast majority of shareholders' right to attend the AGM.
It suggests to me that they have enough votes in and all resolutions will be passed , so its pretty pointless to spend any money on setting up a zoom meeting or any other platform to accommodate those that feel the need for a comfort blanket .
The BOD are getting on with the job in prioritizing the Strategic review and delivering value for the shareholders, the current SP in no way reflects the value Solgold has under its tenure.
Optimistically Add, it could be that we are so close to a bid that communicating with us is no longer a priority.
My sneaky feeling is that come December 2024, we will still be here with no bid, diluted and guessing. After all, it was posited that we would not be here for the 2023 AGM.
Whilst I understand the disappointment, I wouldn't be reading too much into this.
SolGold actually went much further than most other companies during the Covid period to make AGMs interactive.
Most other companies never bothered and haven't moved that way since. I can understand SolGold reverting back given the awkwardness that making the meeting virtual caused.
Obviously there would be nothing stopping us jumping on a plane to Aus and turning up at the offices with our share certs if we so desired.
Personally, I think the company should keep the AGM purely for constitutional and voting matters and then run a couple of Q&As a year. There's dedicated platforms like Investor Meets for that.
Sadly, you are right, particularly as they'd made a commitment to improve shareholder communication and I'm wondering why they made this decision. Cost, or perhaps, based on previous meetings they didn't think it was worth it? Or do they wish to duck some thorny questions? Although I'm pretty sure they could cope with anything we might ask.
I'm not happy, but it doesn't alter my decision to vote for SC.