Member Info for Jerryspaniel

addicknt. Assuming that SOLG collapsed all the entities into the parent, I would assume that they would either cancel the shares or hold them in Treasury for issue at a later stage. Given the need for a lot more funds going forward, the latter seems the most sensible.
They will be issuing a load more to the CGP s/h though and this will dwarf those that they can 'recover' from CGP.
However having read the war of words, I am not sure I think any of this is likely. Seems CGP will try and hawk itself to anyone bar SOLG and SOLG will try to ensure CGP and its directors have as short a life as possible.
A big distraction from the main purpose of the company. I just hope that not too much time or money is spent on it.

addicknt. It is only a share buy back for those they would get from CGP. They will be issuing many times more to the s/h of CGP. So its mildly dilutive to us. I presume they will be accepting the deal on behalf of the shares they own in CGP?!!!

And I am now wondering whether taking it to production (or just saying that) is because CGP dont want that and cant afford to pay for it. Will ego get in the way of business sense for either of these guys?

My take now would be that NM is so totally fed up with CGP management and attitude that he thought he would lay out a limited cost takeout, knowing that while it may not be accepted it will hasten the demise of CGP and the management. If someone comes in with a significantly higher offer, it should read through to a higher value for SOLG. Either way he wins and either way CGP is gonzo!

SST, I was told that it was bought from 2 holders who both had less than a declarable stake, so announcement was needed. I realise that this is self evident(!), but that was the answer I got.

My initial take:
1. SOLG may have been encouraged to do this by any potential lender to the mine development.
2. SOLG is obviously ticked off by the CGP management. Clearly no love lost there. They wont need to deal with them again.
3. Might have been encouraged to do so by NCM or BHP as they wouldnt want to deal with these people either.
4. Makes it simpler for a buyer to value the business - and buy it.
5. Slight dilution for SOLG holders of all the other exploration licences.
6. No more receivable from CGP for the 15% of costs of Alpala.
7. This must have been a big distraction to NM and the board over the past few weeks. No reason to explain the lack of other announcements as a lot of the stuff we want would have come from geologists and drillers, but its taken management time away.
All IMHO!

I will shoot for this week but more in hope than expectation.

BnC, you have my deepest sympathies. Tough times.

Sometimes I think I would get more sense out of my namesake!

Here's something to ponder addicknt. I have wondered why the JPM note has focused almost exclusively on the Alpala mine development whereas the Hannam report was slightly more balanced with the exploration upside too. I wonder whether JPM really do think there is a chance that SOLG will develop the mine and want to be at the front of the queue with mine development finance? Its not like Hannam or most of the others have any debt finance capability. That or some imminent corp action are the only reasons that I can see why JPM would bother.

I am sure that they will want to move the Cu and Au through a pipeline..........

For various reasons I had always believed that it would be end Jan, but now I am not so sure. One of these reasons for doubt is the JPM note. A lot of what is written in it would be overtaken by the info in the PEA and would need to be re-written. Most companies know when there is a major piece of research being done and often 'guide' the analysts so as not to write anything completely wrong. Wouldnt SOLG have asked them to wait a few days if the PEA was coming out in next few days?
WRT the s/holders I would eliminate Hargreaves, Halifax, IIT, Barclays, HSBC, at least, which adds up to about 12%.
I would guess that Maxit are the persistent seller, but really just a guess. All IMHO.

Anna told me that the JPM note is available on DGR Global's website under 'Investor centre'. I have had a look and its there, all 50 pages!
Thanks Anna.

Addicknt, I realise that but we seemed to have got hold of every other piece of research so far. I have emailed Mathew, so lets see what he says.

Apparently lots of regulations about distributing analytical research.
I thought it was a multi page doc but DBWs post only has front page summary, for which I am grateful but doesnt allow anyone to compare and contrast to the excellent piece by Hannam.
I think it will be a waste of time, but I will try and email the JPM analyst directly.

Does anyone have access to or a link to their note?
I had asked Anna if she could provide a link, but they are not allowed to. Cant seem to find it on JPM website which isnt the easiest to navigate.

Agree 100%. These guys rarely initiate coverage unless they think there are some nice fat fees around the corner.

Initiate means its their first opinion on the stock and overweight means that they suggest the reader should own more than a neutral holding.
Assuming it was a large cap and it was in (say) FTSE100 then depending on how you were benchmarked you would need to own so many vs the benchmark. So this says you should own more than that.
The terminology is slightly meaningless in smallcaps that arent in indices, but its a rough equivalent of a buy.IMHO!

The average might be a way off but the average around the mode looks to be about right. Interesting.

I think that proves that she does read this BB! Well done to you!

Sorry Strider, just getting a bit jaded thats all. I havent changed my opinion or my holding in the company. Maybe the winter blues....
Wrt to FTSE250, the company cant enter unless it has a premium rating and I understand that it cant have that unless it has 3yrs of trading history, which means income. However it seems Inv trusts dont have that requirement which I find odd.