Listen to our latest Investing Matters Podcast episode 'Uncovering opportunities with investment trusts' with The AIC's Richard Stone 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.
SOLG Board need 75% to get Special Resolutions passed.
In particular disapplying pre-emption rights. i.e. being able to place a large chunk of shares with a 3rd party without offering share to BHP and NCM...
The special resolutions got 67% at 2023 AGM (from memory the highest in recent years?).
So another 8% of 'For' votes to find. c600m additional votes if similar numbers (BHP & NCM??) continue to vote against.
Could Sean Tufford have been instructed with this in mind? Scott has clearly flagged in 14 Dec RNS the issues caused by low Retail turnout in the past:
"It is very important for all shareholders to vote at the upcoming AGM. Historically, the voter turnout has typically been below 75%, given the vast majority of the retail shareholders do not vote. The retail vote is very important to ensure retail shareholders are properly represented and respected.
SolGold anticipates, similar to previous years, that select shareholders may continue to vote in a manner detrimental to other shareholders. For example, at the last three AGMs, such shareholders acting adverse to other shareholders voted against resolutions related to the disapplication of pre-emption rights, which hindered the Company's flexibility with respect to financing, which historically prevented SolGold from pursuing specific strategic initiatives that would have unlocked significant value for shareholders and counter a creeping takeover."
Makes sense. But +600m retail votes is a big ask. Scott should be selling the benefits of the Specials more, and the 'strategic initiatives' that would unlock significant value.
Hi NMM, I think if they want PIs to vote in favour of the special resolutions disapplying pre-emption rights, they should do a better job of explaining exactly what these resolutions mean, what they are for and why they are proposing them. I didn't bother to read this year's circular but from memory the board's explanation isn't particularly illuminating unless you already essentially grasp them in the first place.
The general feeling on here seems to be that the company is "up to something" and we should be fearful of these resolutions. And after all, we are being asked to vote away our own protection against dilution, so how about a much clearer explanation of how this is in our best interests.
They could also try explaining that these resolutions are fairly standard across all corporates, not Solg specific. Last time I looked they were also proposed by Aviva, BT and I expect every other UK listed company if you went through the alphabet.
Hi,
Replying to emails sent to Solgold would be a good start and cheaper. But you may right!
Hi rcgl2
Completely agree with your post (my post was already an essay so I tried to cover with "Scott should be selling the benefits of the Specials more").
Some posters (with monikers very similar to mine!) have covered the Specials in previous years. I completely agree - still a fear from many Retail investors that these Specials are going to 'hurt' them.
I guess the danger is SOLG not wanting to show their hand - either strategic initiatives considered or any suggestion of wanting to get another investor on board - thereby further frutstrating BHP etc.
However, recent and historic RNSs are pretty clear about what the Board are dealing with:
"select shareholders may continue to vote in a manner detrimental to other shareholders".
On one hand SOLG say they are trying to repair relationships with BHP etc and on the other hand publicly highlight the issues these shareholders are causing. And then as usual come back encouraging the PIs to vote for them.
Wish they would make their mind up. Then explain the strategy and benefits to Retail.
Good morning all.
The reason we require the specials are to give Solgold more control of it's own destiny.
The dilution argument is a non starter.
If we need to raise more capital, then the specials allow us to do it on our own terms and at a higher price.
The likes of BHP and NCM can then decide to participate or get diluted and lose influence in upcoming votes.
We are getting close to start of construction at Cascabel.
Financing is close.
How close, Q? We haven't even got a PFS that works, let alone a DFS.
Btw, your comment about being able to issue shares at a higher price is incorrect, but I do agree with your opening sentence.
Good morning addicknt.
I believe we are very close about 6-9 months.
Some time ago Solgold said that the PFS would be prepared and formatted in such a way that we could import large parts of it into a DFS and BFS.
Thus saving money and time.
On raising money at a higher threshold.
I believe we require the specials to do specific deals with other interested parties and exclude BHP and Newcrest and so achieve a higher price.
Good grief! Another 6 to 9 months of this?
6 to 9 months is nothing, really. We've had years of next to nothing, after all.
Quady, morning. I like your thinking and hope you're right.
Good morning anon3.
We are all in the same boat here.
I post what I genuinely believe.
I would like to see the results of the strategic review sooner rather than later.
By the end of March would be nice.
Also looking at announcements that Solgold and Ecqudors government have said, we should be moving to construction this year.
Again hopefully sooner than later.
But as we all know these things take time.
"And after all, we are being asked to vote away our own protection against dilution..."
Why would Sangha, the other CGP shareholders and Mather dilute their holdings when they could do another streaming deal at the drop of a hat...
Or sell the "CGP" shares come to that...
Slip slidi ng away...slip sliding awaaay...
Lets hope support at 9.28 holds...
Lord Braggart rolled back from his previous bold assertion:
"Holding above 11.20...new support level...?
12.50 then 14 next targets..."
I recall the chastisement which I received when I posted:
"Looks like the SP retrace has began! It would appear that the SP rally was too good to be true!"
Looks like eloro 1.
Adikt,bbg and the deniers 0.
How many times now over the yesrd have the deniers been so sure there right, only to be shot down in flames.
This was always going to slide back without news.
Probably with news also.
Red re your 12.08 post, in which case why are they even proposing the special resolutions just to have them voted down each year if they have no intention of using them to issue equity?
aquinas. have you noticed your last 5 posts to me about a ****atoos, have all disappeared.
aquinas,i actually emailed admin, who informed my posts had been removed because they were part of a thread they removed.
and if i used a different thread to reply my posts would be fine. which i duly did.
then low and behold it's all the humorous posts you made on that one thread that have gone.
be careful, your being watched.
also fantasists, it wasn't me who run to admin, others must be sick of your tripe aswell