Member Info for Bozi

Well said DBW at 12:40.

At this price we all feel there should be significant upside no matter which avenue we take.

Jiangxi clearly agree. That doesn't mean they won't involve themselves in a transaction should the opportunity arise.

Folks, Red is spamming the BB because he doesn't like the fact that many posters are seeing the benefit of the spin out solution.

It doesn't work for him so the toys are coming out of the pram. Simple as that.

So, with Redknight advancing takeover battles at 80p plus like they're nailed on certainties, please recommend this post if you would be happy with a takeover outcome in the 40-60p range.

Probably Addicknt. It is strange and a bit disconcerting.

Sorry ToS1963 was just reading your post again and must take exception to a few bits.

"If everyone were to sell, there is no market in that stock (or other assets) anymore until sellers and buyers find a price they are willing to transact at."

That's not quite the case but it does explain why the market makers are so important to maintaining an orderly market. It also explains why stocks trade around support and resistance levels, with many traders using one form of technical analysis or another.

If every buy had a corresponding investor sell and vice versa in the way Redknight wants everyone to believe, your point about there being no market would be valid, but that's never the case. So, whilst you appear to be agreeing with him what you have done is make a valid point for the other side of the argument.

"When a stock is falling it does not mean there are no buyers."

I never said that. But a falling price is suggestive of two things.

1. There's an imbalance and sellers are dominant.
2. There's a sizeable buy order to fill below current price and market makers are keen to fill it.

Situation 1 will be the prominent scenario during regular trading.

"For every transaction, there must be a buyer and a seller. If the last price keeps dropping, transactions are going through, which means someone sold and someone else bought at that price. The person buying was not likely the broker, though. It could be anyone, like another trader or investor who thinks the price offers an opportunity to make a profit, whether in the short-term or long-term."

That's now how it works. If it did, there would be no need to a bid price and an offer price. There would be no commissions to pay. Your trades would simply match my trades and so on between everybody interested in SOLG shares.

Addicknt - sorry pressed send before I'd seen your other points.

Agree on the TSX listing but suspect the politics around being accessible by Canadian investors might thwart us.

Consider that with my suggestion to spin the regionals, you get 100% of a sale of SolGold plc. Nothing less. It's not like SolGold plc selling Cascabel for say £1bn, being cash rich, having to pay tax on the asset sale and then only distributing half or 70% (at a push of what's left). That's a poor option.

The play is to split SOLG into 2. SOLG keeps Cascabel and Imbabura licences. Everything else goes to NewCo. SOLG is then sold in the way you know best and full value for that company is returned to shareholders. NewCo moves forward as a born again explorer from a lower base with more upside for anyone who wants to stay on the journey.

Addicknt - spinning the regionals out into NewCo by adding a company to SOLGs structure in the way I mentioned is going to be much more cost efficient than divesting Cascabel from SolGold plc.

I don't know if you've been following Redknihht's posts on the tax position. It's a straw man argument and it sounds like you've fallen into the trap.

If you take Cascabel out of SOLG then we have big tax as that's where our value is derived. So, the best way to do it is to take the 4 regional subsidiaries, under a holdings Co, out of SolGold, and then sell SolGold as a clean one asset company with the virtually adjoining licences.

ToS1963 - I'm afraid you missed the point there.

Investors broadly have two options. Buy at best and limit order. Would you agree?

Buyers are obviously on the opposite side to sellers and vice versa. Each is doing the opposite action to the other.

But, and I apologise for the crudeness of this example, if you want to sell SOLG today for 17p and I want to buy it for 16p there is no automatic match for our trades. So what happens? The market makers make the market by themselves buying parcels of stock from sellers and selling parcels they've previously bought to buyers.

Now, it gets more complicated than that. There's different trading functions for investors to use (such as DMA). Others who are more au fait with the intracies of trading will know more about that but at a high level, that's how it works.

Level 2 is relied on quite heavily by some. It shows you the order book for any given stock and you can see where market makers are positioned based on the orders they're in receipt of or occasionally their own needs.

The "buyer for every seller" line is another misnoma, Red.

It's peddled by boiler room rampers to make people who are holding a sinking stock feel better.

If me or you sell SOLG shares tomorrow who buys the stock? The market makers. Those brokers with market desks that run the books of London listed stocks. Winterfloods, Canter Fitzgeralds, Berenberg, etc etc.

The buyer for every seller line suggests that market demand is always equal to market supply. That can't possibly be true at any point in time.

So, the market makers will have a float of SOLG that they'll be trading back into the market where demand allows. Sometimes they will trade that stock between themselves if one market maker is working an order from a particularly nominee (certain firms will only use certain market makers as per their own policy). Market makers are not subject to the same notification requirements that investors are - 3%, +1%.

The market makers having a growing float suggests there's a lack of buyers in the market and vice versa. In market conditions where there's healthy appetite on both sides the market makers likely won't keep much of a float, and in conditions where there's higher demand amongst buyers, they'll often be required to go fishing for stock by moving the price in one direction or the other (usually up).

Now, I won't ask you for your credentials because I know you worked for a broker, so I'm sure you know all that.

DBW - come on now. Don't be doubling down here.

People have asked you to justify your thinking behind a full sale. Forget who is going to be right and wrong, it doesn't matter as long as we all do well.

NewCo is merely the term I have used for the company that would be created were the spin out option to be pursued. Nothing more.

For what it's worth, I acknowledge there are pointers that you could say are suggestive of a sale, but the same pointers don't dispel the spin off option. The termination of the Head of HR for example and no intention to replace is suggestive that SolGold's days are severely numbered, but they're numbered in a regional spin off scenario too.

I think people would be more accepting of having a discussion about a sale of a small number of concise points were offered to give a basis, that's all.

Bubble - A trades happen on any stock where an investor has set up an automated trading system.

Look at all the stocks with good liquidity. They all have A trades daily.

Are you of the view it is anything more than a coincidence?

DBW - I haven't mentioned the p word anywhere at any stage.

I explained what would need to happen after the part you quoted and why I think it should happen.

It's not about being right, honestly. I want SOLG to explore the options that deliver the best value for us all.

Lets get Cascabel sold. Mitsui - if you want in now is the time. You can have 100% if you're willing to front up the cash. You're just not having the regionals. We'll keep those thanks.

Bob knows this. He led the Cornerstone strategy that revolved around farming down promising assets and keeping a small stake for exposure.

Well, Cascabel is matured. Let's pass it on to more experienced hands and let's get back to what SolGold do best.

And DBW, if we assume the equity dilution in NewCo pays for exploration, just as it has for SOLG in recent years, you cant rule out a royalty or two for Porvenir.

If a Porvenir PEA showed an IRR of 30-35% on account of lower capex due to a much shallower deposit, a royalty or two to get through PFS and DFS would be much more palatable.

Granted, NewCo would have to move quicker and more efficiently through the studies than SolGold did.

DBW - with all due respect, I'm not understanding how spending commitments are such a concern. It's the same for any company in the market in this space that isn't generating their own revenue.

Unless you're looking to sell up everything now and take your funds right out of the market, a full sale does not make sense.

As investors, and as Add alluded to and nobody has questioned him on, the conundrum is this:

Will an outright sale of SolGold now pay more than a Cascabel sale and spin out of the regionals into NewCo?

I don't think anyone can argue that it would.

In terms of spend commitments, SOLG would clearly need to get round the table with Lasso. They'd have to point to selling Cascabel, say to a Jiangxi or a Mitsui, helping to get the mine ready for Ecuador ASAP.

They'd need Lasso to revise the spend commitments, which were unrealistic let's be honest. SolGold and other companies can't get quick drilling permits in order to spend the dollars required but at the same time they have spent plenty at Porvenir, Rio, La Hueca. Covid19 lockdown and labour movement restrictions will have added to the challenge.

But NewCo would fund the spending under new management. Solgold still claim, as recently as the last presentation, to have their 3c/lb exploration costs and that will be preserved if further work at the regionals were to prove fruitful.

So, DBW, if SOLG sold Cascabel, and you decided you didn't fancy equity dilution in NewCo, you could sell it on the first day of dealings following IPO. That crystallises a further gain on the whole entity. So to use the example I provided earlier, you'd effectively be dealing in two tranches for 78p(SOLG) and 8p NewCo rather than 85p SOLG. But the beauty of it is you get your full gain and the folks who want to continue with NewCo can do so.

Q- RK claims to have filtered and unfiltered me on numerous occasions. On one occasion I overstepped the mark but all the other times it's because he doesn't take well to being debated by someone who isn't going to succumb to such a career heavyweight.

I really don't want to make this about people, so let's leave this element here if we can.

It's all about SOLG achieving the best possible result for me, and by flogging everything lock stock and barrel in one single transaction, 3-5years before what is quite obviously going to be a copper boom and supercycle, is not very likely to be the best result for us all.

That's my view, and I've set out quite clearly why I think that's the case.

Red- I couldn't care less about your filter list and frankly I'd be surprised if anyone else cares either.

There's less than zero chance of a takeover battle and then IPO, but again you lack the self-awareness to recognise this.

I really don't know why you can't debate all the merits of all the options available to SOLG without letting your personality get in the way. It would make for a better bulletin board and you would receive infinitely more respect, which is of course what you're striving for.

Compare that with the other outcome. SolGold sells itself whole, for say 85p. That puts 7p (£225m on the regionals).

X walks away with £425k cash and a position in the acquirer, assuming it's done on the same 50/50 basis.

Your final point is the pertinent one Add but for the record it was exactly the same with Atlantic Lithium last year.

As Rcgl2 says, the corporate action itself is straightforward. With ALL it was actually the rights issue they did with it that caused investors the most problems - because each broker took their own decision as to whether they allowed participation. But for investors, particularly those with holdings in ISAs and SIPPs, there certainly was no tax.

I'll set this out another way for people still unsure as to the benefits.

Say Investor X. Holds 1m SOLG shares on the record date.

Say SOLG do a distribution 1:10. X gets 100k shares in NewCo.

Then a bid arrives for SOLG (Cascabel). Say 78p but 50/50 cash and stock of the acquirer.

X pockets £390k and a number of shares in the acquirer.

Meanwhile, NewCo has a new board and management team appointed and moves at pace to get the company listed in London. Let's say they open at £25m valuation and raise another £25m in a fundraise, so £50m.

For arguments sake, the share capital is 320m (3.2bn SOLG fully diluted post merger /10) @8p gives us £25m. They then do another 250m shares at 10p and a couple of the big hitters plus Norges support it. The X takes another 150k shares at 10p in the raise and has 250k for at outlay of just £15k.

If NewCo does well and makes another discovery in say a post recession 2024/25 world, where does that SP go? 50p? 100p? At 50p X's £15k outlay is worth £125k and at 100p it's worth £250k.

If NewCo flops and X doesn't sell at any point his max liability is £15k, meaning he's still £375k up plus has the upside of the scrip from SOLGs acquirer.

How does this not make utter and complete sense?

Red, it's late so I'll just thank you for your latest views and say that I'm not in agreement that selling the company 'lock stock' is necessarily the right way to go.

I don't dispute that takeover bids may materialise, but you're digging yourself a hole with casual readers of this board with comments like "this won't go for less than NPV - 78p." You don't know that and you can't guarantee that.

Furthermore, you haven't offered an explanation for everyone not buying the stock like Billio if we're going to receive bids in excess of NPV potentially before the merger completes. But you take it upon yourself to lecture me.

As for your repeated claim that you're not ramping...that's most amusing. You do know that it doesn't matter how much you make a statement - it doesn't make that statement true. You can say it until you're blue in the face, but we all know you're ramping.

Your labelling of me desperate is interesting too. I am not the one that has £300,000+ invested in this stock with a recession on the horizon. Yes, I want the company to fully consider all options, and yes, I have a strong belief that a spin out can be made to work in some way or another for all shareholders whereas your bid scenario doesn't.

I know for sure that if NewCo listed promptly on a decent market with the likes of Jiangxi, BHP, Wyloo or Fortescue holding big positions the IPO would fly.

I'm also dismayed at your claims that I can't use links that help my arguments, but when you do it, it is research. There's really something to be said about your self-awareness
The same article states that underwriting fees are the main expense yet you try and list the cost of menial items like "printing". Give me strength.

I probably won't respond to any more of your points tomorrow. It's rather futile and the board has read enough of me. But I wish you well of course.

Kind words Quady.

Not everybody will and it would be boring if we all agreed all the time.

And yes, I will freely admit that I'm not fully detached emotionally from this stock and that's probably one reason why I come across a bit strong at times. But I have learnt to adjust my own expectations and views as things have evolved.

So it's been a good learning experience. All that remains is we all make it a good financial experience, possibly in early 2023.