Member Info for addicknt

Stas, if you believe Jiangxi are buying without reporting I suggest you talk to the company in the first instance. The company enjoys a very good relationship with Jiangxi and frankly, it would be pretty astonishing if they're doing what you suggest. I would also suggest the sp doesn't reflect any mystery buying. So, sorry, I think you're barking up the wrong tree on this one.

Stas, I take it you're familiar with the disclosure rules?

However, you are right about the size of their holding and their ongoing interest. As far as I'm concerned they are the clear favourite to buy Cascabel and, as I've mentioned before, our Board's task is to make sure it isn't a one horse race, which is very much a clear and present danger.

Stas, I suggest you do a bit of homework with regard to Jiangxi's shareholding. FYI, they have bought relatively few shares in the open market.

CMG, you claim 'this is getting overplayed by the trolls'. I think you'd be well advised to listen to what those involved are actually saying and what the implications are.

You could start by watching the YouTube video PBOW posted yesterday.

We've got to hope a compromise is found, and soon, because the potential impact on the sector is huge - and that isn't hyperbole.

Yankee, the company has previously said it was going to ditch some of the concessions, but the levy will force our hand and we'll probably have to get rid of many more than anticipated. Keeping them under this new tax regime is simply unviable.

I was being lazy and should have googled it first.

The AI response is that the President can overrule the minister depending on the context and nature of the decision. Specifically, he has the power to do so when the issue affects national policy.

It seems to me the levy is something which will impact Noboa's policy to grow the resource sector and therefore, is sufficiently important for his intervention. Should he fail to do so, the consequences will be severe and his new policy will be stillborn. Does he really want this? Time for him to get on the blower to the minister and tell him to wind his neck in.

With regard to the interview, it was interesting to hear the comments on those companies which have many concessions and yet have done nothing with them. I wonder who he could mean? I suppose we are both the villains and heroes of the piece. Time for us to ditch most of them.

Pbow, ref: the Youtube interview posted at 17:17.

Do you know if, constitutionally, Noboa is able to overrule the Minister?

Btw, the very useful annual Corporate Information document suggests the the AG only owns 85% of ENSA. The remaining 15% is still owned by Cornerstone Ecuador SA. This was dated Sept 2024, so things may have been cleaned up since then.

Someone raised the question of tax issues in the event of a sale. They rightly pointed out that some years ago Mather suggested this may be a concern.

Did we not incorporate Solgold Finance AG specifically to get round this issue? As we know, this subsidiary is the direct owner of ENSA and as such any sale proceeds would go to the Swiss company first. (obviously, this assumes a sale of Cascabel, not the plc)

I suppose the issue then arises as to what is the most effective way of distributing the proceeds for the AG and I don't know the answer to that.

RT, I don't think there's any doubt where Noboa's sentiments lie, but he needs results asap and there's no sign any of the western miners are about to show more interest.

To the extent he will talk to the Chinese about specific projects, does he encourage Jiangxi, or does he keep his nose out?

RT, that was the date suggested by IP. It has been confirmed by PS to another poster, although no date was given. I'd be very surprised if anything happens before the 23rd, particularly as DV has been busy talking to government authorities about this bloody levy issue, which is clearly distracting the industry in Ecuador.

RT, interesting. What's the relevance of the 23rd?

Ecuador is going to face this conundrum for many years to come i.e availability of Chinese cash; their willingness to think very long term and, on the face of it, a far greater appetite for risk, versus a more palatable alliance with Western democracy and closer relationships with the IMF and World Bank. It's a fine balancing act. They need to look at various African nations and evaluate whether China's economic colonialism is working for those countries and whether Ecuador wants to go down the same path.

Their report shows that gold equities are up 60% ytd and are trading at 1x NAV. Tier 1 assets are up 73% and trading at 1.3x NAV and Tier3 assets are up 51% and 0.9x NAV.

They have marked Q2 gold to market prices at $3, 278 (previously 2,900)and the figure for 2025 has been marked up to $3,132.

Their long term prediction moves gold from $2,100 to $2,500.

CMG, in which case I apologize. Perhaps best to specify who a post is aimed at?

CMG, so one minute you admit the company is going to give up concessions and then castigate me for saying so. How exactly is that a case of me putting fear into investors?

We should open a book on how many concessions we will give up. 50? 60? More?

Personally, I regard this as a good thing. We'll never do anything with them and the cost is a millstone.

Have revised their commodity price forecasts which has resulted in a 42% average increase in the NAVs of miners. I believe they last did this a year ago, so it's of little surprise that the increase is so significant.

A bit like the non-dom situation and VAT on school fees issue in the UK.

Everyone could see exactly what would happen, with one exception. Our Chancellor and the half-wits she surrounds herself with.

RT, good post at 11:18.

Previous management have stated on two occasions that the Canadian question was a non-issue, and that was before we de-listed. Consequently, it's never been a concern for me and is even less so now.

As far as the UK is concerned, we appear not to give a flying toss about who we sell assets to, so a mine in Ecuador is hardly likely to trouble our regulators/government.

Pbow, cash is indeed the issue. Given we must be running to a very tight budget, the levy has come out of nowhere and could disrupt matters considerably, particularly if, as you fear, Tranche 2 is delayed (although we should bear in mind it was only a few weeks ago that PS expressed full confidence in having sufficient funds for the next 12/18 months)

I suppose the question is how big a dent the levy will make in our cash forecasting and, if we are running behind on Tranche 2, will we need a small placing?