Member Info for Bozi

Quady - I didn't report you whilst agreeing with you. I'm not sure what warped reality you're trying to spin here.

I wasn't contesting some of your peripheral points but I was absolutely disagreeing with the fundamentals of your argument, which was, as you put it, that BlackRock wasn't selling SolGold shares but their clients were selling their funds.

You offered no evidence when asked to produce this. You simply just continued with unfounded mistruths. So you were reported.

Wait a minute Quady.

One minute you're saying that BlackRock aren't selling SOLG shares - it's their clients selling the funds and now you're saying Blackrock are "changing the mix".

The fact is that 30m shares is over 1% of SOLG. It's about 20% of their total holding. This isn't insignificant and it isn't due to routine investor redemptions.

You have been completely caught out on this matter and all you've done this afternoon is tried to pivot and squirm and frankly, putting all your posts together, you have made zero sense.

I'm not contesting the point that 30m isn't significant for BlackRock,bit that wasn't the argument. It's your latest attempt to try and save some face. The fact remains that it is significant for us given you are forever at pains to point out "low volumes of less than 10m" as if that has any significance.

I won't filter you because you'll continue with your misinformation just like you were giving VRS a sweet talking on these boards over the last few weeks. How about you practice what you preach and filter everyone who you argue with instead?

You're losing all your allies Quady. I've given you much more credit than many other board members have, but my remaining respect is gone.

Learn to admit when you're wrong instead of trying to shape shift, as you are on the production vs JV argument. People see right through it and it does you no favours.

Maybe I am Quady.

But your posts show a complete mis-understanding of the relationship between SOLG and Blackrock.

Alterations to the funds, ETFs etc holding SOLG on account of client redemptions will not see 30m SOLG shares sold in a fairly short timeframe.

Some ETFs will naturally be rebalanced based on specific parameters but we can see given how the cumulative BlackRock holding remained fairly steady between 4.5-5% over a significant period of time that current circumstances are far removed from what we have seen before.

This isn't just routine ETF rebalances.

Quady - I have reported your post for misinformation.

Thanks for saying that DBW.

I'm actually in shock at Quady's 'attempted pivot' here, particularly given what he is on record saying and what is happening. Staggering.

Quady, you said,

"Correct Bozi the BlackRock funds are being sold, it's not BlackRock selling shares."

That's wrong. It is BlackRock fund managers selling SOLG shares.

Quady, you said

"So reasons for selling Solgold shares could be.

1=) The fund no longer has Solgold as part of it's mix."

That isn't a reason. That's causation.

BlackRock isn't just ETFs. They have a huge fund management business with offerings they manage actively. ETFs are there to track markets, commodity baskets, benchmarks, etc.

I'm really seeing some holes in your understanding around this.

Quady - please desist. You have no idea what you are talking about. BlackRock's cumulative holding of SOLG is reducing and quite steadily. That is because their individual funds are selling SOLG stock, the effect of which is being felt on our SP.

Where is your proof that BlackRock clients are redeeming their fund holdings in sufficient weight that the fund then is forced to sell SOLG stock to meet liquidity demand?

If a fund no longer has SOLG in it, it's because that fund manager has sold their SOLG shares. How is that possible if "BlackRock are not selling SOLG shares."

I agree that BlackRock are likely not selling SolGold stock to "walk the price down" but they are certainly selling SOLG stock and the price is certainly be walked down, so any discussion on what their motives might be is rather moot.

Novice - do you fancy explaining your statement?

After years of "55p by Friday" you're now opting for 55% value destruction in a week?

I do hope you know that if events transpire to produce that performance then there's little to zero chance of this "coming good on a 3-5 year view" If we see single figures before Christmas it's because the SOLG shareholders have voted like turkeys again and January 23 will be the start of a brand new hell for us all.

Be careful what you wish for.

DBW - one thing I'll say for Quady is that I don't know if BlackRock are experiencing a major run on their funds. They could be for all I know, and if they were then such an event may require excess liquidity.

But what are the chances even in the current environment? <1%?

Quady - that is not how it works. You have had this explained numerous times.

BlackRock are selling down from their various funds, for whatever reason. It's as simple as that.

Cox - you seem to still be harbouring plenty of emotion here for a trader.

BT was entitled to fight his corner and he did. He brought some interesting new investors on board at a time when the market was (and still is) starved of capital.

That said, it means nothing if we don't make discoveries and near misses will no longer do given the deployment of CSAMT with soil sampling and TDEM. Bags were talked of as an upside scenario of a success case and that was made very clear.

If that has been missed then I can only question if people know what they have bought.

Anyone want to call 1981investor out as StackHigh yet...?

Quady - that is not an answer.

Anyone can repeat the same 10 lines ad verbatim.

It wasn't really what I was looking for I'm afraid.

Quady - excuse me but you're in no position to demand factual information.

I put the pitfalls of a construction and production strategy to you last week and got back nothing of any substance.

You may want to answer that question first.

"Since announcing the merger, the SolGold board has acted swiftly to position the combined company on a path that is in the best interest of all shareholders.”

There's the pudding folks. Let's hope it is tasty.

Good posts SM and Rcgl2.

What do you disagree with Copperpot?

I don't always see eye to eye with Redknight but nothing in that post is wildly out of place.

Specialist funds do arb mergers and other special situations. That's a fact. SolGold's transaction with CGP should provide an opportunity for them.

That is decent sleuthing Redknight.

Please stick to posts of this standard.

I'm not giving that clwptrap the time of day Swest.

This geezer is awaiting his next PREM entry yet he wants to tell us we have poor quality spodumene. We have some of the lowest processing costs of any project suggestive of a premium product and simple flowsheet.

As for the child labour comment, crikey.

All views certainly aren't valid. They're permitted but when they're that unresearched they really aren't worth the time of day.

Says the guy who based on his posting history has backed most of the lithium horses because he doesn't know how to pick a good one...