Member Info for addicknt

Ganfeng have done a fantastic deal here. They have gained effective control of the company for a relatively minor investment and have, which is much more important for them, gained access to the product they need.
Currently, there is no need for them to seek full equity control.
The downside of this is that it has removed one of the most interesting aspects of investment in the company; namely, it would become subject to a takeover process from various mining/ oil majors. This will now never happen.
Over the longer term, this will be a solid company, producing solid results and, hopefully, a useful dividend flow.
Ironically, any future sp excitement is likely to come from Zinnwald, not the jewel in the crown, which is Sonora.
All in all, this has been a severe disappointment for me and although I came out just about even, I was expecting so much more. A salutary lesson.

To answer your question; yes. A company can apply to a court in order to circumvent this aspect of Company law. It is done regularly.

Well, we did have the fabled 1 trade earlier on...cough, cough.

Ha, beat me to it, Terry.

Indeed. The warrant holders pay the pre-determined price to the company (it receives the cash) and then shares are issued to the holders. They can then either sell, or hold the shares - and in this instance, we're led to believe they will hold - and who wouldn't?

comic, that's exactly as I understood it.

we shouldn't pay too much attention to the reported trades, but over the past three or four weeks there has hardly been a single day when buys haven't outweighed sells - and yet, here we are.
If we assume that a price is determined by supply and demand, this one appears to be defying logic. Very odd.

easy to understand why some short term punters want to take their profits off the table, but what's more difficult to understand are those who have panicked, or those who are spending their time trying to rubbish the stock. I can only assume they simply didn't understand what was said in that interview.
He came nearer than any other director I've ever heard on one of these things, to revealing price sensitive information. What he was saying and the implications are as plain as the nose on your face.

As if on cue, the bloke at Newcrest confirms my comments.
Time for us to discretely market Cascabel and force Newcrest's hand.

the market reaction to yesterday's announcements was, to put it mildly, disappointing and I imagine we are all wondering why.
In my opinion there are two reasons: First, the market perception that Equador is an unstable environment and second, the "SXX effect".
Before anyone points out the differences between us and SXX, I think we are all fully aware of them. My point is more general. The market, in it's simplistic mind, looks at us and says "mining project - needs lots of money - just like SXX and they can't raise the cash ergo, neither will SOLG".
I believe this is wrong for many reasons, but the market isn't interested in investigating those reasons; it only ever reacts in a visceral way until such time as the evidence is slapping it in the face, which in our case means the extraction of ore and production of revenue.
There's not much anyone can do about the perception of the political situation, but as we all know, everything has, thus far, gone in our favour.
Personally, I cannot see any way to unlock shareholder value other than to sell Alpala and then move on to the next one. We should stop thinking of ourselves as a production company and revert to being an explorer. Sure, it may mean we don't get maximum value, but achieving that value will take many years, and Mather doesn't have many years.
If NM really does have some weird dynastic view of the company and his legacy, he should drop it now. He should take the money - it's always the right thing to do.

Are you serious?!

The Company that keeps on giving...but not to shareholders.
This is exactly what I loathe about the modern corporate world; people who are not entrepreneurs, rewarding themselves at the expense of the owners of the business.
I'm not sure of the precise amount, but from memory, Secker has put diddly squat of his own money into this company. No risk...high reward. The exact reverse of the position shareholders are in.

ran a very interesting full-page article about copper mining in Chile.
There are real concerns that mining activities in the country are having a major impact upon the glaciers and real political pressure is mounting. The article also presented a very balanced discussion about the need for copper as we move towards greater requirements for renewable energy.
Of course, we don't operate in areas where glaciers are a concern, and I think we can assume Equador will be presenting itself as a viable alternative to Chile, which currently produces 25% of the world's copper production.

Thanks, coldcut. This confirms what the company, albeit belatedly, told us in the recent RNS. It's a pity a private investor has to add the detail which I consider the company should have provided ages ago.

Excellent find, coldcut. Thanks for posting.

Ha, ha! Brilliant! Poor bloke simply doesn't have a scooby, does he?

Bear in mind, RTC doesn't know the difference between equity and debt, which must make investing rather difficult.

DBW, yes, that's right.

DBW, I'm afraid that's incorrect.

If there is indeed a decision has already be made and a deal done, the company is breaking the law by not announcing it. They cannot simply sit on price sensitive information.
My view is that negotiations are ongoing and have been for some time, but no agreement has yet been reached.