Member Info for addicknt

Oh look! I've caught a stickleback!

Perhaps they could photoshop an image of him and use a bit of AI for him to tell us how well it's all going? In reality he's in a bunker wondering how the hell he's going to save DGR.

Acorn, the relevant section on funding in the TR is worth reading. And if you want cheering up, the RNS concerning the new IPA is encouraging. In fact, we've had plenty of good news since the start of the year.

RK, I'll say one thing, you've got a vivid imagination.

RK, let's put the initial dilution argument one side. If we followed your idea, and let's be generous and say we can persuade the market that newco has a value of 50m ( currently it ascibes no value). So newco has a quote and we now only own 80%, but it has no cash. It then raises 50m for exploration. I guess you can see how we end up owning a minority holding?

So the question is, how does this derive any benefit to existing shareholders and how does it accord with the stated intention of providing us with a cash return?

RK, yes, I have. Your thread title states 'non-dilutive funding...' I'm simply pointing out to you that it would lead to dilution, which you appear to have accepted.

You talk about issuing 15/20 % to the market, how is that not dilution? And who on earth is going to be interested in a company with zero liquidity and how does it benefit us shareholders.

In my opinion, you're barking up the wrong tree.

RK, your appear not to have grasped this. Currently, we own 100% of the subsidiaries. If we spin them off they will need cash and that cash will have to be in the form of equity which, in turn, will be provided by new investors. We will then end up owning a diluted percentage of newco.

And '84's point is also completely valid.

Brisvegas, indeed, it's a wonderful country and, like many Brits, I have quite a few relatives living there.

NAL, that was 2016. I know Australia is a long way behind the rest of the world, but just for guidance, it's now 2024. You'll get there one day, although I'm not holding my breath.

RK, obviously, and that's why it would be dilutive.

I'm not sure the six subsidiaries would be suitable, but that's a moot point. How would they trade without any cash? And to get that cash they'd need to raise equity (I cant see how any of the funding structures would be available to them).

As for providing a monetization opportunity, the rush for the exit would destroy the share price.

In my opinion, the only part of the business which could be IPO'd is ENSA.

I note the lad who was asking about valuation has either been banned or left this site. He only popped up a couple of days ago. I hope he wasn't put off by the fact his value expectations were not necessarily shared by everyone.

NAL, who said I didn't know about it? Unlike you, I tend to read as much as is available before I invest.

Way back in time I was invested in the company when the Solomon Islands were the hot topic, so I'd kept my eye on the company in the hope I might be able to get back the money I'd lost. I am confident I will.

As for your memory, I'm afraid it doesn't work properly, as you so admirably demonstrate every time you post. Perhaps it's time to visit your doctor.

Listen dimwit, you said I and soothsayer, whoever he is, screamed hysterically that we should turn down the BHP offer. I did no such thing and there's a good reason for that, at that particular moment, 2016 I believe, I wasn't a shareholder. So, unless you can provide evidence that I said, you can STFU.

To respond to your last asinine post: 1) We don't know and what happened back in the mists of time is completely irrelevant. 2) The various recent announcements have clearly passed you by. Perhaps your internet connect works on a five year time delay?

Nal, yet again a total lie. And if you think matters haven't progressed since those days, you're even thicker than I thought.

Mather, ha!

BBG, your optimism knows no bounds.

At least!

If only!

GA, there's the valuation which appears in the accounts, and then there's the npv which appears in the PFS, but the real valuation is what someone's prepared to pay for it, and we don't have that answer...yet.

And we've had five highly positive announcements so far this year, several of which contained transformative news. It's been an absolute age since we've seen anything like it, and yet... I can only guess how frustrating this must be for SC.

On another matter, we've not had any news on a new chairman. It was announced on 17th Nov and the company must have known about it for some time prior to that. They're certainly taking their time to find another one...or perhaps they're not going to bother.