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.
As per last weeks comment from Mr Robinson, I think the presentation has been updated.
Shareholdings:
Cornerstone+Maxit 23.7%
BHP 10.4%
NCM 10.3%
DGR 6.8%
Jiangxi 5.2%
Tenstar 4.0%
NM (direct) 3.0%
Other 36.6%
No mention of Norges/BR.
Caldwell is described as CEO.
Other than that I'm not sure there's much else - although I'm sure the eagled-eyed amongst you may spot something.
Only thing I notice addicknt is we didn't need to offer CGP such good terms and that they no longer need to stump up a shed load of cash.
I agree something is in the offing.
However with the completion of the strategic review, I suspect it's going to us all by suprise.
Take us all by surprise.
I think it demonstrates what a good negotiator Sangha is, and how poor DC was.
In fact he's so good he even got us to pay his fee.
If they are using 3% as the cut off point then they wouldn't include Norges as they dipped under 3% with the merger dilution. Blackrock were already sub 3% I believe and missing off the list.
Apart from that, all looks normal. Considering CGP had 15% ENSA and around 6% SOLG stock, they appear to have dodged the dilution that we have all suffered and are almost 3% up on their holdings. Irony is, after Scott's extra 1% farce they are collectively close to 25%. So yes, they appear to be doing very well whilst everyone else BHP included have seen their holdings diluted by almost 30%.
Fort, indeed - it had better turn out to be worth it!
It's likely that over time we could have starved them into submission, so why do it now? Because it makes us more attractive and makes it easier for a buyer to deal with. The feeling must have been that the SR would prove less effective without them on board, and for that we paid a heavy price.
However, on balance, I'm pleased we did - provided Caldwell is true to his word.
Sorry addicknt that doesn't stack up either.
CGP and Solgold could have jointly agreed a sale with a buyer. No need to offer them such good terms.
I have slowly changed my mind to agreeing a JV.
That to me makes the most sense, and answers all the questions.
So I believe we consolidated Cascabel, because it is now financible.
Q, you forget we were at total loggerheads with CGP/Sangha and the animosity was such that they could have made life very uncomfortable.
As for a jv, it's the very worst outcome for us - unless you like the idea of losing control and being reduced to a bit-player?
Agreed add we would be better off being taken over at a sp not far from where we are now rather than enter a jv and experience the long drawn out pain of being diluted to oblivion over a number of years..lts face it there are not many infrastructure projects that get built on time and in budget.
Morning addicknt, in life you sometimes don't get what you want....you get what you're given!
Not all agree that a J/V is the best outcome, but they might get one irrelevant of their wishes!
There will be many exit points and ALL shareholders will be rewarded (or something like that, I'm to busy to check). Does that mean investors that want production will be rewarded too?
Good luck buddy, see you back here in a week or two.....life beckons!
Not2/Add
Absolutely….. with the board now comprised of massively invested/ incentivised individuals there is no way they are going to watch their potential return decimated by entering a JV and destroying any potential T/O premium.
This will be taken out by a major I have no doubt in time and at a substantial premium to todays price.
In the meantime continuing to optimise the project will enable a new assessment of the true value of this project in an environment of much higher copper and gold prices. this is all achievable without locking into premature engineering studies based on an unoptimised model. That would be a waste of time & money as it’d all have to be redone.
There will be no indication of any offers on the horizon until it happens then hopefully all hell will break loose.
Much as I was a little taken back by Scott’s options on reflection I’m starting to see it as a good thing as he is massively incentivised and I’m sure there will be certain performance criteria that need meeting.
On a separate note I did question the company on the lack of updates on the website and asked the reason why ….. apparently whole website currently undergoing a revamp.
"certain performance criteria that need meeting"
Yes DBW... and I suspect they'll make that criteria rather easy to accomplish. One caveat being 'any material sale' will result in all SOLG shares vesting.
In Scott's case the options are already at a base price near multi year lows. Hence surely he would be ok with the criteria being that unless a 100% gain (34p) is achieved then Zero options vest. Considering that most believe that 34p is far from being a decent price (on historic basis to with or without dilution) then something like that could certainly help shareholders with their outlook. If for instance the criteria says something lime 50% increase in share price (from 17p) results in 50% vesting then I for one will not be voting it through.
So when the 'criteria' is released, we'll soon know two things... 1. How cheap they want to make it for themselves... 2. Or how confident they are of making a sale or cash in event over 50p. In absence of the latter, I think it's going to hurt sentiment wise as well as morally.
Keeping it simple, I don't think any management should be rewarded with any options unless the monetisation event happens THIS YEAR and it's over 50p. Anything less and that's poor performance, undervalued and all down to MISS management and we wouldn't want to reward for that would we?
DBW..... 'whole site is undergoing a revamp'.... hopefully it will look a lot like BHP, Jiangxi, Mitsui, Newcrest's website soon :) Have a good day all. C
Code 1
Bubble, how I wish your Code 1 was foolproof for delivery of the news we need from Solgold!
News of a sale of Cascabel is what most of us desire.
I know there is a lot of hype on King World news but do have a look at the graph on this attachment. If correct we really are in an excellent position but requires time (which to my mind we do not have).
https://kingworldnews.com/the-most-important-chart-of-2023-will-blow-your-mind/
Eish lol just my theory passing time waiting for an offer
https://www.kitco.com/news/2023-03-22/What-s-holding-back-M-A-in-the-copper-space.html
What's with the inclusion of Clarksons Securities under analyst coverage on presentation??
Clarksons Securities are more about oil and gas/shipping etc and not much to do with Ecuador or miners in general. It's a curious one as they are at the low end or bottom of analysts targets. Why would you include it when you have more than enough credible analyst coverage already?
Unless Scott and co need that low end number in there to help them set their option vest criteria lol! Wouldn't want to use all the experienced analysts numbers in the mid 60's and 70's now would we!
Chin up guys/girls news will come soon enough imho
Well it hasn't come soon enough yet Bubble