Member Info for addicknt

Pinot, thanks for posting. The decision is obviously very helpful and it would be good to think that this issue can finally be put behind us. Although the CC's decision with regard to our area was only won on a technicality, this judgement appears to make it crystal clear that all mining permissions are firmly in the hands of the government.

One trick? yes, indeed. But how often do you see a pony skiing down Everest whilst writing a Nobel Prize winning novel and whistling all movements from the Enigma Variations? Let's be honest, this is a pretty damn clever pony.

A very interesting article and thanks for posting.
It provides an interesting take on the Cornerstone situation, in as much as the author believes the rationale for the proposed takeover is to remove the obstacle they present to corporate action; that makes more sense. It should also put to bed the thought that some people express that our minority shareholders are unable to influence matters. As I said yesterday, we are in the hands of these people and NMs task should be to steer a way through which benefits all shareholders, which won't be easy.
I also support the concept of spinning-off Cascabel in order to prevent the type of dilution I was referring to yesterday; although I'd prefer to see it being sold.
All of these complexities support the view that there's much going on behind the scenes and NM has a fascinating task at hand.

BBG, not sure how to take that.
You either agree with me or consider me to be a sermonizing old tosspot. Whichever it is, I agree with you.

TheItalian, agreed. But the problem is that any major fund raise will, if our main shareholders feel like it, be stopped.
When I look at situations like ours, and when I'm trying to understand the direction of travel, I always start with the known facts, which, in this case, are few and far between (as they relate to corporate intentions). However, the two facts we know with absolute certainty is that neither BHP nor Newcrest want small minority shareholdings. And we can add to that the fact they are not even remotely interested in us; in fact, if they can screw us, they will.
So, my whole hypothesis starts with these two points and, to be honest, ends with them.
The only alternative I see to them not ending-up owning SOLG is that for some as yet unknown reason, they discover something they don't like and walk away. In this instance, we are all totally ferked.

Cookie, who knows, you may be right. However, I don't think such an arrangement will be the best outcome for shareholders.
Both companies would want to inject the cash via a large dollop of equity and the dilution for us would be massive. I know some people will argue it could be done via debt, but why would BHP/New pursue that option? In effect, they would be risking their own capital for relatively small returns, whilst simultaneously benefitting us ordinary shareholders.
I maintain my position on this: I simply cannot envisage any situation whereby they inject any more serious amount of cash for anything other than 100% control...why would they? They are not here to help SOLG shareholders.
These are the facts:
1) They are not interested in their current levels of shareholding.
2)They do not operate business models whereby they hold minority stakes.
3) They won't do something for our benefit.
4) They will be unwilling to let NM pursue the debt route, which would effectively spoil their party. And although they can't stop him trying, they can most certainly stop him completing.
5) Assuming the good progress has continued, they will be interested in one thing only; full ownership.
I know many people harbour the hope that we will progress on our own as an independent entity, but, in my opinion, there's not a chance of that happening. Our main shareholders won't let it.

that due to the fact we've had so little substantive news for such a long time, some people assume that very little is happening in the background. In my opinion, this is wrong.
When companies with a hyper-active CEO go into some form of news purdah, it's rarely because nothing is happening...a leopard doesn't change it's spots. Normally, it implies that a great deal of a very substantial nature is going-on. Putting to one side the fact that there must be a huge number of drilling results lurking about, my view is that the reason for the radio silence is all to do with various corporate actions. These take a long time to agree and finalise and silence is demanded by the market.
I can see no other explanation for the lack of news. I think that when something hits, it's going to be hugely significant.

Dated 30th July and relating to southern Equador.

From what I can understand, I can't really see why S&G are at fault.
They were in negotiations and seemingly took advantage of information that came their way. (although how anyone can claim they took advantage when they so obviously overpaid, is somewhat of a mystery) This happens all of the time and is an accepted fact of life. Were they expected to ignore the info? There must be more to this than meets the eye.
The people who appear to be culpable are PwC. Why not pursue them? Perhaps it's because PwC have considerably deeper pockets?
Anyway, just like Brexit, this is a saga that keeps on giving.

else think the daft Cornerstone plan has been quietly dropped? If not, this delay is now firmly into the realms of utter farce.

Bampster, Fuku, et al, thank you for your kind comments.

don't imagine there's a single one of us who's enjoying this share price fall, but I admit to not being worried at all (I hope I don't regret saying that!)
The trading pattern throughout the summer holidays appears to represent nothing more than small private investors taking fright and is therefore, nothing to be concerned about. On the face of it, absolutely nothing has changed and, as far as I'm aware, we are still sitting on something pretty spectacular.
My only caveat remains that I'm completely opposed to the bid for Cornerstone and believe the stuff we've been sold as an explanation for the delay in publishing the document is utter tosh; which in turn, leads me to the conclusion that what is actually going on behind the scenes may be of far greater significance.
In any event, the summer holidays come to end soon, and let's hope we start to see some serious action. In the meantime, enjoy what promises to be a very pleasant bank holiday weekend.

So, yesterday I was castigated for suggesting that the RNS had implied that further board ratification was required, and yet today this appears to be widely accepted.
Oh well, such is the way of these pages.

This is like pushing water uphill. I haven't referred to the government decision; I'm talking about Ganfeng's own processes. Please read what I've been saying over the past 24 hours.

That's not actually what I said. This has nothing to do with the government; it's about Ganfeng's internal processes. I'm not sure I could have been any clearer.

nomadic...agreed.
Citizenlane, that's the point; it wasn't clear. The inclusion of the sentence concerning a board meeting, which was not mentioned when the deal signing was announced, may imply further board approval is required, and given their own recent issues, this is not an unreasonable thought.
To answer the question directly, if it is subject to further ratification, the RNS should have said so. Similarly, if it is not, then I can see no reason to mention it at all. It's not as if he was giving a reference timeline upon which people could base their expectations. It was vague and the interpretation, given the track record, could be that it was deliberately so.

bluegrass, I'm not sure how long you've been following this page, but I'm assuming a fair while? If so, you'd have known that I've been one of the biggest proponents of this share since I first invested and started discussing here in December 2014.
Although, for a long time, there were only about half a dozen or so regular contributors, there was a high level of debate. People were both enthusiastic but also felt able to raise concerns without being accused of being "negative", or "de-ramping"; in other words, just as it should be.
We became frustrated at the lack of progress on funding, the lack of clarity and the failure ever to hit stated time-lines, but this has never distracted from the view that this is a great asset; this remains the case.
As I've said repeatedly, I do think the investment from Ganfeng will go ahead; I also think it's a poor deal, but recognise it was the only one available. It is also the case that a continuing funding gap exists. However, it's beyond me why you think the question I raised yesterday was "negative"...it was simply something based upon what was plain to see in the RNS. It may well be that it's a red herring, as someone said yesterday, and if that's the case, great. Equally, its inclusion must have been deliberate and it's very easy to see why it set thought processes running.
I'm sorry if my posts upset your equilibrium, but these boards exist so that people can discuss companies, warts and all. And long may that remain the case.

I'm afraid you are typical of many investors on these pages; you assume because someone raises perfectly legitimate questions about a company, the immediate assumption is that the person raising them is "talking down" the investment.
My guess is that you've never served on a board, nor have you worked with a private equity house in terms of assessing investments and then running them? If you had, you'd get what I am saying immediately. It has absolutely nothing to do with "running down" a company; it's all about trying to find out what is the truth.
As small private investors in public companies we are no better than the proverbial mushroom. The information we are fed is hand-picked and tailored. It is distorted and manipulated all of the time. It's a very rare CEO who tells the unvarnished truth. How many times have you seen circumstances when the truth emerges ONLY when the solids hit the fan?
So, my advice (for what it's worth), is always question; always probe; always look for the negatives and don't swallow what you're being told as gospel. Be cynical.
Sadly, todays announcement was very typical of its breed and deserves to be challenged. If you choose not to, so be it.

bluegrass, it won't give you any context whatsoever. Whether I'm a current holder or not is of no relevance to my comments.

spencer, it wasn't a question of "keeping people in the loop". First, they had a legal requirement to issue the announcement and second, they had stated in the previous RNS that they would update the market with any developments.
Please re-read what I've said. This announcement, yet again, raises a key question. There are two possibilities: the investment IS subject to a new board approval or, the RNS was incredibly poorly worded...again.