Member Info for Bozi

The NPV isn't MNPI because it's not non-public.

The last PFS in February 2024 used certain metal prices based on qualified assumptions from the company.

The same filing included a sensitivity analysis showing how spot prices would impact NPVs based on that project (reserve, capex, opex, etc).

The company isn't obliged to keep any information in presentations, nor is it required to publish a weekly or monthly NPV update.

Shareholders can see that certain individuals want the stock up to meet their own ends. The FCA may be interested in that given their focus on boiler room scams and market manipulation.

The company is never going to use spot prices as the base case in an economic study regardless of the trend of future price forecasts.

This would damage any remaining credibility with institutional investors and potential project financiers.

There is the odd example of companies using spot prices in economic studies and they tend to get laughed out of town.

SolGold doesn't need it. It doesn't matter whether the NPV of Cascabel is $3bn, $6bn or $9bn. It won't affect the share price.

Add - it's because they know in their heart of hearts that PBow is correct and they'll get a very similar if not identical answer from Smith.

It doesn't stop them rocking the boat - to what end - maybe they will tell us...

Stas - they don't.

It's in the old PFS. The information is out there.

SolGold aren't required to say "look, the price of the basket has increased and our NPV is now $x."

Course they would PBow.

This call from Rodney and Co is desperate to say the least.

The fundamentals are in the February 2024 PFS announcement - figures 1 and 2.

SolGold has never ramped it's SP and I doubt it's going to start now, all to help retail trade some stock.

Rodney - how can it be MNPI? It was in the PFS and technical report?

I appreciate your desire for shareholder activism but you've got to try harder. Companies are not obliged to re-publish sensitivity analysis because the price of the basket has changed.

Red - that's a bit like you popping down your local auction house, seeing a nice beemer or merc going through and offering 6x the price that starts the bidding because you don't want the local dealer to get a bargain.

Lets put the shoe on the other foot. As a former GFD, give us some insight on what would be involved when making such a premium offer on a potential acquisition in the hope it tempts someone out of the shadows.

Make no mistake, I'd love nothing more than you to be on the money, because we'd all then be in the money, but we've got to be realistic.

Is it not more likely that Jiangxi will eventually push against PS, make gradual increases on market and cornerstone future financings?

They sort of know that none of the other big holders are that interested.

Red - Newmont are rowing in with GGP, or Greatland Resources as they're now known.

Add - that info checks out with that obtained by SharketMare a few weeks ago.

Hope you're making plans to keep as much of that as possible out of the grips of the taxman, Red.

...and I don't mean income tax or CGT.

2.3m at 8p is about £160k.

This is probably why Red thinks that we should only be blowing smoke into the stock.

To be fair Gaz that checks out.

Red is in at 8p and price is 7p, so ~12-15% down.

If that's £22k down and 2.3m at 8p is

As you know I constantly disagree with Bozi because if you regularly read his posts you would conclude that he either has zero shares and/or he is a deramper paid by JCC...

Red - you disagree with me because you don't like my objectivity.

You can only see positives because you think you can only talk positively because you hold the stock.

It's nonsense.

The sooner you realise that I will talk positively and negatively about stocks I hold the sooner we'll be able to tolerate each other.

Stas - you're about ready for the interview between Crux Mining and Ari Sussman of current junior darling out of Canada, Collective Mining.

They are drilling a large gold asset out in Columbia and whilst the interview is with their company and project in mind, there's significant read across with SOLG.

The key is the Tandy drilling. That helps inform a feasibility study with open pit and block cave, giving an exciting kicker to the NPV figures and reducing development times.

This one workstream transforms the project and company and helps close the gap. SolGold then need to do everything I said last evening to bring retail back to a stronger story and push the SP into a range where a control premium is much more palatable.

It won't happen without it.

That's it NMM. The time for being selective with crumbs and dangling half a carrot has ended.

Be clear about the points we can control. Hires, fires, workstreams, etc.

If there's nothing much to say, well there lies the reason for trading at 4% of NAV.

It's a mix of a few things I've commented on this BB in recent months, Stas.

1. Lack of a short-term investment case.

2. Lack of short term catalysts within that investment case.

3. Lack of belief from the market that this company can get the job done (trust erosion from 3-4 years of modest operational performance).

That's what it boils down to. The NAV is great - it shows we're holding equity in a very valuable resource.

But virtually nobody believes the company will close the gap, tick off the milestones and get us cherry ripe for some competitive M&A.

First job has to be to look at newsflow and messaging to market. Dan comes in March and promises a reset and plan for ExploreCo in Q2. Granted, there has been a spanner or two inserted into the works since then, but we're almost at the end of Q2 and we're waiting with expectation to see which way they're going to take this.

Commit to the plan, be up front with shareholders, tackle any issues head on and the market will appreciate that and see the merit of a recovery story.

Turn the NAV on its head and ask yourselves why we're not trading higher given we:

1. Have the amended IPA

2. Have syndicate financing to give us a 12mth runway.

3. Have invigorated and energised management and a new chairman

So given a NAV of 164p, why aren't we trading at 25p, (15%)?

That's the question to ask. Why and then WHY.

Because they're irrelevant Stas.

They don't account for the Franco/Osisko financing either.

The ultimate job here will be to try and convince shareholders that the eventual end game, wherever that may lie, is the best result possible.

Highlighting NAV makes that all the more difficult.

TheItalian

If you're happy to report the comments to this BB surely you are happy for them to be challenged or dismissed out of hand?

Or are you looking for positive affirmation only? Either way, it's better to be open about it.

I've only passed comment with a personal view. People can do what they like with it.

Don't forget, we've had months and months of Tufford telling us his phone has been ringing off the hook and his LinkedIn has had a bazillion hits.

But here we are.

I support Dan like I supported the folks before him, but I do feel that I know when we're being spun a yarn. Some numbers or a thesis might have helped Dan's argument here.

Yes TheItalian, Dan is most certainly talking through his backside.

It's a nonsense narrative that gets him away from having to be critical about Scott and you're lapping it up.

If management wants to explore reasons for shares trading where they are, they need to look at each other and their performance since the merger in 2022. It has got absolutely zero to do with the fact they haven't issued new paper. Laughable.

Possibly Stas, but probably not.