RE: CMG22 Feb 2026 15:36
Rodney - the diverse book point wasn't nonsense at all. It's probably at the top of a very short list of valuable contributions from Quady.
To rubbish the notion of a diverse book is to show a fundamental lack of understanding of what is a basic but important concept, and it doesn't bode well for your group effecting change if a no vote carries tomorrow or in court.
Take a lot of junior explorers with assets of note. They tend to partner with a single major producer. That major producer gets their feet under the table and management gets so cosy that it leads to everyone else being shafted by a favourable change of control.
SolGold had three major companies on board. However, the company made the following mistakes:
1. Management at the time decided it wanted to take the company beyond the PEA. In reality, it could have explored a sale then, but giving a BHP/Newcrest contest an opportunity to play out.
They didn't and Newcrest sat on their stake, soured by events that followed.
2. Next up was the royalty financings, firstly with Franco and then Franco and Osisko. We know how that sullied the majors who wanted cheap, no strings equity.
Those actions altered the dynamic and the power of the diverse book was dimmed, so much so that SolGold had to court a third major, Jiangxi. Jiangxi were taken forward as the preferred partner, gifted the Canada tranche sub 10p and almost gifted technical exclusivity.
So really, whilst we had 1x12% and 2x 10% holders, it was effectively 1 concert holding 32%. BHP hopped over to Argentina and Newcrest, now under the control of Newmont, kept the stock as non core.
So what might have changed things?
SolGold really had two options. Sell the company to the highest bidder post PEA and exit, or play both holders off up to the PFS and DFS by allowing both anti dilution rights and equity via capital raises rather than royalty funding. It might have meant 4bn shares in issue now with BHP/Nemont having 15% each whilst Mather would have been down to 2%, but 2% of £2bn would have been better than 3% of £850m, and there's more chance both of the biggies would have remained engaged.
What were the spanners in the works? There was an immature mining regime in Ecuador, a path that only Lundin had trodden, and ever changing politics didn't help. Also, the company had its own issues with as many CEO changes as there were new presidents.
As it is, the book was diverse in structure only. The damage that had been done previously stopped it from functioning as it should. SolGold didn't nurture the diverse book for it to provide strength when needed. Instead, the company had stale bulls holding 10% each. Who was to blame? Everyone - Mather, the Canadians, the majors and lastly, retail for kicking off the CEO merry go round.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
