Member Info for addicknt

KRSS, you asked what is the combined holding of New and BHP. The answer is, 29.32%, excluding options.

Jerry, am envious that you're basking in the Cape sunshine.
Only one quibble; I still regard this as a great story and believe 2020 will reward the faith.
Have a great time and happy Christmas.

In one sense, I'm not too fussed about the drilling result stuff; I guess it will all appear in MRE3. Although I am exercised by the ridiculous situation with Cornerstone, which I regard as tactically truly useless.
What's interesting is that when combined, the lack of newsflow, Cornerstone, funding, etc, it all adds up to something a bit odd. Putting myself in the directors shoes, leads me to conclude that there is definitely something going on. NM is not a man naturally given to radio silence and he most certainly would have been anxious to put news out there which would arrest the decline in the share price. Something is preventing him from so-doing. So the questions is; what?
My only conclusion is that it's something of great significance. Cash reserves are dwindling and he doesn't have the luxury of being able to sit back and wait for things to happen. At this stage of the game he has to be hyperactive...there is no choice.
Q1 will be fascinating.

I'm really sorry to say this, but the disposal was an act of desperation.
Trading has clearly been awful and the company's strategy has not been executed well. The only saving grace is that it will leave cash in the business to rebuild.
A bad day.

a fair degree of discussion and head scratching about the quantum of the latest BHP placing. I think most of us were slightly confused by it...at least I was.
One assumes the purpose of the placing was for working capital, but the amount was not significant and given that we don't really know what the current burn rate is, it's difficult to guesstimate how long it will last; but I think it's fair to say it won't be that long.
So the questions which arise are; why so little? And why BHP?
My view is that we are in detailed conversation with BHP about some form of corporate action. They would know we are not awash with working capital and may have been tempted to starve us of cash. However, I reckon NM has said to them that if they provide the required working capital for the period of the discussions, he will not engage with any other interested party, and, subject to the final agreement, will recommend it to shareholders. In other words, he's offering them preference over Newcrest, but it came at a cost of £22m.
This type of arrangement would normally be disclosable, so it must have been done in such a way as to avoid the regulations.
An alternative theory is that we are in deep and detailed conversation with regard to a full funding package and needed to cash to see us over the line and NM has offered BHP preferred terms in that package if they took up the 22m.
This latter theory seems unlikely to me, as I can't see how we can raise money without at least a PFS and, in all probability, a BFS.
Whatever the theory, that raise was strange and there must have been a reason for it.
So, this is my conspiracy theory for Christmas.

Hi, fhec, the point is they are all at the exploration stage (or most of them) and are part of the new strategy spelt out by the majors over the past two years. I simply cannot see either of them being prepared to sit as a minority holder in SOLG. It's simply too big and too important.

lostagain, my own preference is that the whole Cornerstone thing is forgotten, but I know others think differently. In any event, I do not see us getting it on the cheap. They know what they've got and they'll do everything to ensure they get true value.
As far as our valuation is concerned and the ability of someone to have a pop at such low values, I share your concern. BHP and Newcrest will, I imagine, be asking how they can achieve this. Normally, you'd have thought the simplest way is to starve us of cash, but the recent investment by BHP somewhat disproved the theory and to me, was also a little surprising.
The only thing I feel with absolute certainty is that neither of these two companies have any interest at all in being minority shareholders in anything...let alone this giant. Anyone who thinks they are is failing to understand their clearly stated strategies and objectives. It is only a matter and time and valuation.

it appears we won't won't be getting MRE3 this year. There's no point releasing it before January, as it'll have no impact whatsoever.
Does this matter? Well, no. But I do prefer it when companies in which I invest actually deliver on stated timelines. Mind you, 2019 has been hopeless in this respect.
Overall, this has been a strange year. Great progress, political uncertainty, which was then resolved, further major investment from our backers and proof we are sitting on something awesome. And one almighty error...announcing a bid for Cornerstone and then failing abysmally to deliver anything whatsoever. This has been a stupid mistake.
2020 is set to be a very exciting time.

I suspect she had very little to do. Mind you, why they made her a director shortly before she left, remains a mystery. As does many other things.

Optimus, in my opinion, a deliberate decision was made by the company to be less forthcoming with the news flow this year, and to keep it to more or less the minimum required by the regulations.
The questions is, why?
As I've said before, I find it amazing they haven't been forced into being more open about Cornerstone, and this is deeply annoying.

For what it's worth, Gary Newman on the share prophets web site, has rated SOLG as a solid buy and considers, as we all do, the current price to significantly undervalue the company.
He's not the most significant of stock pundits but, as the advert says, "Every little bit helps".

I'm not convinced we'll see much positive action upon the release of MRE3. The market really isn't at all interested in resource statements from juniors these days and, in any event, I'm sure it is already anticipated that it will be good.
Therefore, when will we see some action?
Obviously, a takeover would do the trick, but we're all in the dark on this one.
An announcement concerning the full funding package would be a huge fillip; but I can't see how this can happen pre-pfs, at the earliest. Which finance company would back a project without a PFS, or, one suspects, a BFS? If they did, what's the point of producing them?
I suppose finance could be offered on a conditional basis i.e confirmation only after positive BFS, but if I were looking to fund this, I wouldn't bother until I could show my credit committee the full document.
None of this is to say anything negative, it's merely my take, and I remain hugely bullish about this stock. But, as we all look to see some positive action, I'm trying to be objective.
All contrary opinions welcome.

Difficult to be precise, but it looks like one buy, one sell, although that seems unlikely. Mind you, in the scheme of things, it's not big at all.

why NM felt compelled to issue an RNS about his intentions for Cornerstone? If he had been bidding for a UK listed company the target would have issued a "put-up or shut-up" demand.
It has been almost a year and is a total embarrassment. It shows poor judgement and has made us look weak. And, as shareholders, by keeping us in the dark, we have been treated very badly.
As we look back at 2019, this has been my major gripe.

Bozzy, you say you don't understand why the market has reacted in the way it has.
Do the calculation relating to a reduction of 10k bopd over the course of a year. It's of huge significance for the company, particularly bearing in mind the level of leverage within the business. This is the reason for the reaction...nothing more, nothing less.

Many of us private investors, various brokers and market commentators are anticipating that either one of our existing shareholders, or another mining major, will bid for SOLG. Indeed, we are surprised it hasn't already happened.
But it seems to me the situation will be driven by the relatively new strategies announced by all of the major mining companies. In other words, they shifted away from their previous approach, which was to buy assets at a pretty early stage, at considerable cost, to a policy of investing in juniors and allowing these companies to bear much of the exploration risk. They are fully prepared to invest significant sums to facilitate the process, but have no appetite to assume all of the risk until they are wholly confident of the outcome.
So, the key question is; at what stage do they define a project to have been fully de-risked? Or as near as is feasible.
Is it at MRE stage? PFS?BFS?
Does the fact they have a foot in door mean they are less likely to bid early?
It's hard to fault their new policies, particularly if you are a shareholder and are very aware of the previous investment disasters which have befallen them. But this is pretty new to them and, particularly in our case, could mean they are engaging in a risky game; in as much as something left of field could emerge, which leaves them slightly flat-footed.
I wonder where the inflexion point is? We must be getting fairly close, surely?

Maybe this is what he really meant when he said "rinse and repeat"?

The Italian, neither did I, at first. Cornerstone was mentioned too many times.

iceberg, I'm guessing that your observation that they may have "lent some of their shares out", is based upon the theory that they're happy to see the sp fall lower?
Personally, I can't see that. If they are hoping to maintain good relations with the company, which they self-evidently are, allowing their share to be lent out would be a surefire way to pish NM off.

TheItalian, I think you may have misunderstood what people were saying. It wasn't about the requirement to report, but was about the mistakes in the RNS.