Member Info for addicknt

durham, I don't think anyone was suggesting it is. The problem, unlike the referendum issue, is not specific to Cascabel or any other mining development; it's all to do with political unrest, the threats to their democracy and the prospect of a left-wing coup and neither Anna, nor anyone else, can offer any clear information about that.

Cookie, I very much doubt the development funds have.
As for the nature of the unrest, when a government actually has to flee the capital city, you can pretty much assume the problems are serious and fundamental. They are obliged, by the IMF, to impose various austerity measures, but the public is unwilling to accept that fact. This a circle that can't be squared; therefore, the unrest will continue.

In my opinion, what the latest developments suggest is that there is no chance whatsoever of the company being able to fund the development via the raising of substantial amounts of debt. The unrest will have put paid to that. Lending institutions will not be able to accept this level of political risk. And the bond market, if it is accessible, will be hugely expensive.
I'm not suggesting that funds required for the short-term working capital will be unobtainable; I expect this to come from equity markets and/or our existing major shareholders, but the billions required to actually build the mine are now beyond the scope of SOLG.
Bearing this in mind, I always come back to the preferred strategy of selling Cascabel and using those funds to develop the other assets, as well as paying a divi to existing holders.
It's such a crying shame that the politics are disrupting an economic development which is so essential for the future of Equador and it's people.

Funny how you never hear successful CEOs saying this sort of thing, isn't it?

Earthling, I understood what you were talking about and I'm afraid I disagree. What NM says and what he may be able to achieve, are two very different things.
For me, the strategy here is blindingly obvious: Sell Alpala, pay-out a decent divi and keep the rest to explore and develop the the other assets. In terms of delivering shareholder value, this is by far the best route.
In a sense, Alpala would be the sacrificial lamb, which would enable us to move forward without the constant need for cash and concomitant dilution.

earthling, although it would be marvellous to think a funding package would be "dilution free", I'm struggling to think of a single junior explorer that has managed to achieve this. And in the current environment, it's even less likely.

Don't you just love it when bleeding-heart, middle class liberals seek to deny a Third World country the right to develop it's assets and in so-doing, improve the lives of the population?
Mind you, had I been in Oz for the AGM, I too would be protesting. But for different reasons.

Apologies, Woody...I misinterpreted your post.

I've had two responses from Anna on this subject; the first giving the ludicrous answer about the translation and the second, which effectively said, "the cheque's in the post". That was ages ago.
Woody, your response seems to imply that somehow you think this situation is acceptable? It isn't...sorry.

Oh, and by the way, the excuse that the delay was being caused by having to translate the document into French qualifies as one of the most egregious lies I've ever heard a public company offer to its shareholders.

The intention to offer for Cornerstone was made on 31st January and nothing substantive has happened since. Frankly, this is a disgrace.
It was obvious that the company was not ready to make the offer and it was equally obvious that it would be turned down. NM should have announced that the offer had been dropped ages ago and we should have moved on from there.
To my mind, this is very poor management indeed, and not to keep shareholders informed is utterly irresponsible.
NM may be a great mining man, but thus far, his strategic handling of this has been completely inept and is acting as a drag on our progress.

when a CEO resigns with "immediate effect" and no explanation is provided, you can be pretty sure something has happened.
The usual reasons are: poor performance (this doesn't seem to be the case), a falling-out with the board over strategy, or bad behaviour.
I'm not sure how the market will react to this, but the lack of explanation is troubling.

And you think this is good news?
The charge had to be granted due to the fact Rapid has failed to repay the loan.
By the way, how is life in Wonderland?

Baking, these type of transactions often reflect an existing shareholder transferring holdings between one controlled corporate entity and another or, in the case of an individual, transferring shares to a Trust, spouse or family member. Obviously, there may be many reasons for doing this, but taxation is often the driver.

I think the most revealing thing about the Sirius situation is the difficulties that exist in the bond market. Raising large sums is proving very tricky at the moment and, in my opinion, will affect the direction of travel for us.

Well done to you for calling this one correctly, but if I were you I wouldn't confuse my guesses with insight or brilliance. It was a guess and you know it. As for your statement of last evening, I'd be surprised if it survives on this page for very long.

Ehseem, his observations were no more than a guess, which he disguised as containing some form of great wisdom. You can look at any board on this site and you'll find countless numbers of posters doing the same thing and occasionally, they may get it right.
If you base your own investment decisions upon what someone on here says, particularly when they're making it up, then more fool you.

I wonder which of the large shareholders, apart from Cornerstone, voted against the various remuneration motions? I'm assuming there must at least, have been one.

Picto, as ever, I'm delighted you are happy, chilled etc, etc; but can you tell us what happened to the $2bn worth of deals?

After a lifetime of being involved in corporate transactions, both as an advisor and principal, I can tell you that all valuation methodology is pretty much irrelevant.
As Quady says, it's easy to work out a technical valuation, but it will virtually never translate into an actual realised value.
It's a truism, but something is only worth what someone will pay for it; and different people have different reasons for attributing their own value.
My only advice is don't waste too much time trying to establish a "fair value". The market will do the work for you. It's probably more productive to focus on selling when you've reached a profit level that you feel comfortable with.