Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. 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.
If the company sells, as a large number of posters here believe will happen, will you get more or less money if those shares are owned by the company instead of being on circulation? Start simple, then I'll teach you from there.
There has been 3bn shares in issue throughout (before and after sc's statement). No one is debating that. But the company has owned, and therefore shareholders have owned, 155m of these since the merger.
And why won't he sell these shares, add? Because he wants to keep the number in circulation down, so he owns a bigger slice of the pie.
👍
Given that you refer to people who disagree with you as f**ktards, clowns, idiots etc, etc, I'm not sure you're in any position to lecture anyone about personal insults.
SM, agreed. Very odd choice. I suspect you recall this topic was debated ad nauseam a while back. We went round the houses and eventually reached the right conclusion - as SH likes to say, the science was settled. So it's strange it's arisen again, particularly as SC will do whatever possible not to sell the shares.
The same. Because there are the same number of shares issued. You are making yourself look very, very silly.
The personal insults are a good effort on your part, add, as is claiming to be correct when you're not. Solid debate skills 🤦♀️
Solg have always been able to sell the shares they own. But the moment they do, do you as a share holder own more, less or the same proportion of the company? If you think it's the same or more, I can't help you. When the shares were safely tucked up in the company (which is when Scott made his statement) you owned a number of shares out of 2.845bn that were owned by investors. The shares held by the company would not have been included in the distribution. (Show me an example where shares weren't just cancelled on sale), had a sale happened during this time, each share would have received one 2.845billionth of the resulting pay out. If those shares are sold, each share you own will receive one 3billionth of the proceeds. Spoiler alert: that's less
1984's post has gone.
You can always tell when the panic button has been pressed.
Bravo addicknt. It's very strange he's chosen this hill to die on. I expect he'll be back under a new name after this embarrassment.
Quady - lost for words at this point.
Quady: "Dilution refers to the value, not how many shares in issue."
Wrong, wrong wrong !
The value can go up or down, the shares in issue are fixed until they are either bought back and cancelled or more are created.
Ask yourself why BHP had a no-dilution clause in SOLG. That's to stop confetti share issues. They can't however stop the movement of the SP which can either increase the value of their share holding or decrease it.
I can't believe how thick you really are when you aren't copy and pasting !
Can someone else tell him ?
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dilution.asp
"Share dilution is when a company issues additional stock, reducing the ownership proportion of a current shareholder. Shares can be diluted through a conversion by holders of optionable securities, secondary offerings to raise additional capital, or offering new shares in exchange for acquisitions or services."
SH, you won't change mine of any one else's mind because we are right and you are not. And just to help you a bit, we were free to sell the shares from day 1. And what does 'if they are sold, we've sold shares that were not available for money' actually mean?
You are very clearly out of your depth here, so I suggest you return to your habitual topic of extolling your own genius, which given this recent exchange, is looking distinctly frayed around the edges.
How many of those shares have traded since the merger, add? Wouldn't call holding them in company ownership 'available'. They are owned by the company, and hence the company's shareholders. If they are sold, we've sold shares that were not available for money. Dilution!
Anyway, I've no interest in changing your mind. If you believe selling these shares will see Scott make good on his promise to fundraise in a way that doesn't dilute PIs, good for you. You'll own a bit less, but you'll be happy because you haven't noticed. Go about your business.
I meanwhile, will be glad I didn't sit on a load of shares whilst the price took a nose dive. And I'll keep my powder mostly dry to jump back in when the dilution is over 👍
SharketMare your investment has not been diluted because the company is worth twice as much.
Dilution refers to the value, not how many shares in issue.
Yes, they were. They've been 'available' ever since we merged with CGP.
We're those shares available to be traded when Scott made his comment, add? I completely agree that, had he spoken when the company didn't hold any of the 3bn shares, and all 3bn were available to be traded by shareholders, then they were in issue and in circulation. But he made the non-dilutive claim whilst they were owned by solg. An asset. Ready to cancel or sell, but owned proportionally by all holders. So if solg sell them, compared to that point, any shareholder who doesn't buy them is diluted relative to their proportional ownership at the time of the statement. This is why I've maintained all along that, from the point of his statement, selling these shares would be dilutive
Jerry, you're missing a treat.
Somehow I doubt that she will
SH, you state that 'when a company issues more stock, the existing shareholders 'own the cash', but a smaller share of the company'. Putting to one side the question of a Rights Issue, which allows existing holders to avoid dilution, you are right.
However, there's one fatal flaw in your argument - if we sell the 155m we are NOT issuing any more shares. They have already been issued.
You'll get there in the end.
There's another interesting article about copper in today's paper.
The headline is "The world's on the edge of a copper supercycle" and is written by Tom Stevenson who is an investment director at Fidelity - in other words, he's not a know-nothing journalist.
We're all familiar with the argument, but I'd still recommend a read.
The discussion about dilution, accretion and shares outstanding is very illuminating as it tells me immediately those that understand finance and those that don't. I would filter anyone who doesn't understand as it brings into question all their opinions relating to a Solgold investment imo, but as I haven't seen any posts by someone who doesn't get it, I am assuming that I already have. So my judgement appears to be spot on!
Only 29 trades in the first 2.1/2 hours...only 10 AT...total value £45k...
Is this it...soon...?
Shameless - there is a perfectly good BB for 1SN and I can see you're already ramping it over there. Latest post claiming it'll go to 50p.
Back to the 8’s today?
It will come good here eventually.
You just have to have patience before one gets what they really want.
:)
Quady not understanding dilution is up there with the funniest things I've read on this board. Earlier this week we had BBG not understanding at a UT was and now this. From someone who claims to have been investing for 40+ years too. Must have the luck of an Irishman.
In fact TMX has closed anything up to 9% higher than London for at least the last 8 trading days...
And remember, Canada is a global epicentre for mining finance...
M22 9.14 9.28
T23 8.9 8.99
W24 8.72 8.99
T25 9.11 9.28
F26 9.33 10.17
M29 9.79 10.17
T30 9.2 9.86
W01 9.2 9.86
SOLG closed at 9.86 on TMX...oddly quiet this morning...
Only £32k traded in the first 80 minutes...Offbook outnumbering Autotrades...
This happened last Wednesday and I thought then that the market might be expecting something...
Who knows...long overdue...