Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. 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.
Correct Rodney but this muppet is cut from the same mould as the other confirmation biased moron, comrade Quady
They can’t see that they’re wrong and even when it’s laid out before them they’ll argue black is white
Block the twat
Https://craft.co/solgold-canada/executives
So despite having been taken over cornerstone still exists but is called solgold canada?
How many shares does it hold?
No my friend. I am not mistaken. Issued shares is all that matters. If it were not then BHP selling all its shares would be dilutitive in that they have sat on them for years. Share price times issued shares equals market cap. You may be thinking about free float which is a different matter. Solgold selling shares owned by Solgold Canada is not dilutitive. Of they cancelled the shares, shares issued go down and, all things being equal, the share price would go up.
Rampant green box twat today! Everyone join me
In filtering the moron and she will find another forum to wind up
Clear as day what this attention seeking twat is after
As for the rest of us, payday is coming
Very clearly explained. They weren't in circulation when SC said non-dilutive. So if they are sold, they will be back in circulation and hence holders will have a smaller slice of the pie. Very simple. That's the definition of dilution. I wouldn't worry, add- all of this is moot as SC will know he can't sell them and claim not to be diluting holders from the position they were in when he made that claim. He must have a generous benefactor lined up who will give us the cash for nothing in return 🤣 Either that or he joins the list of people who have said stupid s*** about this company. Remember fast and smart? You suckers bought that, too.
Non-dilutive my a***. Ain't nothing for free in this world, and only fools would believe there is.
You’re wasting your time Addicknt. He’d argue selling a paper clip is dilutive. He’s that kind of tosspot
Don’t feed the virus
SH, sorry, you've got this completely wrong. The fact they are held by Solgold Canada is not the point. They qualify as issued shares and as such are included in the total issued shares number. As I said previously, this was clearly explained by the company last year.
You counting the shares owned by solgold as being in circulation, Rodney? That'll be your error. When SC made his statement, they weren't in circulation, they belonged to the company. One of the few benefits of the merger. But now they are talking about selling those shares so they are back in circulation, so the number of shares in circulation will increase. That's dilution 👍
Most people get it Rodney, only one plonker doesn’t
Non dilutative. No new shares are issued. It so happens that the shares in question are owned by a subsidiary of Solgold (and may be sold to another owner in due course).
In addition to the US$311 million investment addressed by the current IPA, under the Complementary IPA, there is a commitment to invest a total of US $3.2 billion over the subsequent years in activities related to the Cascabel mining concession.
The Complementary IPA embodies the largest mining investment in Ecuadorian history, highlighting the scale and importance of the Project, SolGold's commitment, and the impact on the broader Ecuadorian mining sector.
SolGold's CEO and President of SolGold Ecuador, Scott Caldwell, commented:
"The Complementary Investment Protection Agreement not only reinforces the protections for our key investment in Ecuador but also symbolizes a deepening of our relationship with the Ecuadorian State. President Noboa's attendance and insightful speech at the PDAC convention were warmly welcomed by the mining community and underscores the significant support of his administration for responsible mining in Ecuador."
From a desperate X man, like many of us:
June 27th presentation titled Future Copper Giants & it infers Solgold conditions are met to be a giant.The Hannam & Partners presentation infers material news.This requires financing first 2 years as Caldwell mentioned in recent exchanges.We can only assume huge news to drop now
Good point nmm. Diluting 2.84bn to 3bn is worse than 3.14 to 3.3.
So when Scott said funding would not be dilutive, there were 3bn solg shares, of which only 2.84 were in circulation because 160m were in fact owned by shareholders as part of the company. If those 160m shares get sold, each existing holder at the time of Scott's statement owns a smaller proportion of the company (1 three-billionth rather than 1 two-point-eight-four-billionth at the time of the statement). Hence dilutive. I rest my case
It's really not that tricky, guys. You'll get there 👍
I'm still waiting to hear from your "solicitor" manchild...
Oh btw where did I directly call you a nonce only place i've mentioned it is here and it's on the solg site you 2wat, never mentioned your name never posted it on GST bb how do you stand now, you to me are all hot air and diarrhea, stop embarrassing yourself in front of adults
==================================================================================================
Novicehunter
Posted in: SOLG
Posts: 9,243
Price: 9.76
Strong Buy
RE: Strategic Review30 Apr 2024 08:20
Ok looks like it's going to be a quiet day regards any SOLG news ...
have a good day all and stay away for the sake of these nonces...
55p Someday soon !!!
================================================================================================
You really are an absolute Twunt with a guilty conscience and always looking for an argument 🤷♀️
you're great entertainment tiny, if nothing else
I'm not selling any of our 3.1 million. Or were you making a general comment?
Stackhigh.
I'm a bit confused where you've got the 3.15bn from.
Financial data (e.g. FT Tearsheet) and SOLG's own slides show the shares in issue to be c3bn.
Which is consistent with the May 2023 'Share Capital and Voting Rights' RNS. (I can't see an updated Voting Rights RNS).
Then Solgold Canada sub owns another 5%, i.e. 0.15bn, but I don't think these are in Treasury and not Issued or Outstanding shares?
I read those documents, add. Their intention to sell the shares doesn't change the simple fact you keep ignoring.
Shares in circulation when SC said non-dilutive= 3.15bn
Were we supposed to assume he meant non-dilutive from another, previous, unspecified time? Because compared to the situation we were in when he said non-dilutive, selling these shares would be dilutive. You can tie yourself in knots trying to deny this, or you can team up with slug and start another culture war, but you can't change the number of shares in circulation.
1984, you're right, he really doesn't understand the concept and thinks his arrogant dismissal of others is sufficient to win an argument.
Just for guidance, SH, the company spelt this all out in one of the documents relating to the merger.
Again, slug using the female sex in an effort to be patronising. What a charmer 🤢
The shares in circulation at the time SC made the comment were not the 3.3bn listed, because 160m of them were out of circulation, owned by solg. It was one of the few benefits of a merger that cost solg shareholders very dearly. If they get sold back into circulation, and there are 3.3bn shares dividing the company, that will be an act of dilution.
It's not that tricky add 👍
Add - I don’t think she gets that shares in circulation would not increase so it wouldn’t be classed as dilutive
You can of course argue ANY raising of funds is dilutive! An offtake or royalty affects future profits, a sale of an asset reduces owned assets
The name of the game is getting to the bid point with the most intact, that’s when our investment matures
Just block the twat, i did
And if you think a royalty deal, lessening the amount of the asset you own, isn't dilutive either, then I'm amazed you've got the brain power to type
Nice try, SM. No weaseling here. As you can see, I stand by my statement that there will be no non-dilutive raise, because we are not a charity. If we sell shares that increase the number in circulation, that's dilution. If you don't understand that, it's not my job to teach you.
See? Total absence of any weasel. But you lot are now bricking it about the giveaway that's coming...
Before shares are sold, you own a number of shares out of the 3.15bn in circulation. Ownership of all assets of the company are divided by this total. Then, owing to a sale of shares by the company, you own a number of shares out of 3.3bn in circulation. Yes, your company has some funding. But how was it achieved? By dilution.
At the time Scott said there would be no dilution, there were only 3.15bn shares in circulation because c. 150mn were owned by shareholders.
I'm not sure it's me who doesn't get this, add. If you think selling shares that were owned by the company is non-dilutive then I have a bridge you might be interested in
Who'd have thought SH was that thick hey Addick 🤣🤣🤣 no wonder some punters are just punters and will never get to the upper echelons that we mix with