Quady, yes you're taking an extreme example to validate your point. Self-evidently SOME diversit in the book is important. As I said, it's a case of capping holdings to stop them going above a certain percentage and getting too much control, just as NM has sensibly done with NCM and BHP.
Listen Quady, nobody is arguing against the idea that if BHP had 40% of the company this would be a one-way ticket. To just talk about a diverse book is too simplistic. You need to see who owns the shares and at what percentage. Of the share owners, which are sticky hands looking for an eventual payout (e.g. Blackrock, NM, DGR), which are actively hostile to the board (CGP, NCM) and which are potential potential predators (BHP, NCM and Chinese). Clearly, it's a case of capping the holdings of the potential predators and attempting to get rid of the actively hostiles, whereever possible. Confetti dilution, for the sake of it, as you keep suggesting, is a great way to shoot yourself in the foot while you're at it.
And Rights Issues are only fair to those existing holders that have spare capital, and the desire to invest said capital, to put towards it. Many Retail holders do not have a pot of spare cash just sat around waiting.
Quady, that statement is simply incorrect. We do not need to trust NM and yet we can still get the CFP. If the resolution fails at the AGM, all it will mean is that any significant equity issue event will have to be passed by the share holders. What's not to like about that? If it's anywhere near a good deal ALL retail holders will vote for it.
What Addicknt is saying makes sense to me. If he gets a good deal done for the total CFP he would get the support of all of the retail vote anyway...and that should be enough to pass it. But NM wants a carte blanche to do whatever deal he sees fit potentially issuing 2/3 of the share capital at an unknown price. I say again, if it's a good deal I'd support it in a jiffy, but I don't want to take it on trust.
Patrm, but this isn't a one horse race anymore. There's Porvenir and high hopes for Rio Ama too. Plus, there are 11 other priority concessions each with mutiple targets on them (e.g. Cacharposa was formerly Target 6 at Porvenir). It is a monstrous, countrywide play and it's one that the Majors/Chinese want to get their hands on. To paraphrase the guy from the Mining Journal: SOLG is a a super hot takeover target.
from today's RNS is that, as Addicknt said earlier, they've run through the numbers and they're looking tight, tight enough that perhaps the Retail vote could swing it. That can only mean that BHP have either already indicated that they are against some of the resolutions, or that NM fears it likely that BHP will swing that way. It is odds on that they want to oust NM and put in place a stooge that will dripfeed them the cheap equity that they desire. hey want to own SOLG and badly. But NM's going to make them pay top dollar, and he may need some Retail help to do it.
Bozi, I do agree that the company should be managed with the medium to long term view, and not to satisfy traders' short term desires for a quick profit. Afterall, SOLG is trying to do some good in Ecuador, alonside their ambitions (acting sustainably, employing locals, investing in the local economy etc).
It is up to the traders themselves to be good enough at what they do to navigate those waters.
Bozi, "I want to make as much money as anyone but i appreciate the once in a lifetime opportunity SOLG has to go from dust kicker to multi-project major producer in what could be a major commodity bull market.
You people are happy to take your lb of flesh and move onto the next. I'm all about maximising this opportunity because there aren't many underexplored jurisdictions left."
You've even admitted that your main concern here is to make money and indeed to claim otherwise would be to lack integrity. Because that is what we are all here for, first and foremost. So, what does it matter how others make their money? Your comment about traders smacks of resentment and perhaps some jealousy. If nobody traded the liquidity in this share would be diabolical. And I think you will find that there are very few "pure" investors that post on this BB. Even Quady sold 1/3 of his shares in the 30s when it rocketed in 2016/17.
There are two fronts for which future equity raises may occur.
1) Alpala TCFP - NM has been quite clear on several occasions that they are looking to do this on the Project level, so similar to the FN deal in terms of dilution to shareholders. As a large shareholder himself, he should have our interests at heart here.
2) Regionals - there's a new Sugar Daddy in town and as far as I'm concerned I'd be happy to see the Chinese investor take chunks of equity at or above the current share price (as we saw 10 days ago) up to about 10% of the company to put them on par with BHP/NCM. That's a very decent wedge of money that will last several years. And every time the Chinese come back for more it will be yet more endorsement of the company's prospects, and it will turn the screws on BHP.
Btw, the deadline for voting is 11am on the 15th of December so there really is no hurry at this stage. The only danger is that you then forget, but I don't doubt that there will be some reminders posted on here nearer the time anyway.
Let's see what NM can come up with in the meantime. We are due plenty of meaningful news on multiple fronts.
Bozi, well it looked like you were trying to tar all traders with the same brush there.
Yes, I agree that those traders who flip from ramping to deramping just as soon as they have sold are lacking integrity, and I have said as much on several occasions in the past.