Member Info for NotMuchMoney

Perfectly put addicknt.

There's nothing bad about being wrong ProfitSniffer. Most of us here have been proven wrong after all.

It just doesn't need the "I'm never wrong" repeated so often (Chinese won't be successful, there will definitely be a counter-bid, won't see another AGM years ago etc).

Almost appears you were talking your own book?

Anyhow, enjoy your dough and place in the sun.

Rodney - I said "not being sufficient to form a view" as opposed to 28p was too low.

Plenty of items, that we have been discussing over the last few months, that I would have expected comment on as part of justification of the switch from go-it-alone to sell-out cheap. You know, the list of items you were confident would all be delivered in Q4.

RodneyT - did you attend the Court or General Meeting today?

I understood you were planning to challenge the Scheme Document as not being sufficient to form a view on whether 28p represented a true and fair value?

Did the Solgsmallshareholders group not think worth the effort in the end?

More AI ramblings from you InvestorPanda

"👉 Realistically: next 2–3 weeks max"

How? The Sanction hearing is 2nd March, and Effective date 4th March.

Basically 6 trading days for something to happen.

It flew through, 90%+ 'For'

General Meeting RNS taking a while.

Hopefully reflects a long queue of shareholders sharing their frustrations to the Board.

Best of luck to Rodney and any others voicing their concerns at Court Meeting this morning.

Not because I know if 28p is a 'true and fair' offer (and that's the main point, Scheme document is unclear on the why and current position with much Solgold activity).

More that I can't stomach Dan and Scott getting richly rewarded for their underperformance and low ambitions.

Zoros - re:

"10 - 1015am. Court meeting. Results confirmed.

1015 - whenever. General meeting chatting about the special resolutions needed to make it so."

Not quite.

There is a vote at General Meeting as well. 75% required.

Now I'm not sure the SP would collapse on a 'No' vote. The IIs have recently been buying in close to, or even on, 28p.

They don't buy at 28p for a zero gain hoping JCC are successful.

Plus there is certainly risk of JCC scheme not being approved, or some Govt barrier to executing in light of the USA Critical Minerals deal (conscious that sounds a bit like InvestorPanda, but it is a tangible political risk).

Separately - and I'm sure you have it covered so forgive me - but I would suggest the main challenge in Court is on the incompleteness of the Scheme Document:

Activity communicated as expected during H2 2025, but then no updates:

CIPA

Environmental Assessment

ExploreCo and regional progress

And then items shareholders would reasonably be expected to be updated on:

Tranche 3 progress and funding runway

Study delivery (whether PFS or DFS)

i.e. shareholders cannot answer the question "what has suddenly changed to consider 28p fair value"?

Rodney - worth considering the Valuestone investment in Porvenir (2020), the relationship between Valuestone and JCC, and the common link of John Liu (formerly? a director/partner at Valuestone and advisor to Jiangxi Copper).

I don't know if Valuestone still have their shares (would be under the 1%). Also not named as a connected party to JCC.

I'm pretty sure Valuestone would have seen more than is made public. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, as long as not material info.

No idea what data John Liu or Solgold Board would have shared with JCC (and others) as part of the Strategic Review or takeover discussions.

Agreed Bozi, the timing grates.

Imagine where we'd be if 18 months hadn't been lost to the Strategic Review / 'ex-CGP' running down the SP.

DJG1234 - what some posters seem to be forgetting when mentioning Tranche 3 is there are milestones to meet before the cash is released.

Simple fact is Solgold over-commit and under-deliver. They missed Tranche 2 and some conditions were waived. They are some way away from the bigger Tranche 3 items, with no update on challenges / revised timescales, and no sign of further waivers.

That's not to say a $50m raise - immaterial in the grand scheme of things - wouldn't be enough to get Solgold to Tranche 3.

There's a reason JCC have been able to get a bid away at 28p. It's lack of progress on studies and de-risking. A lack of a competent technical team with reliance on outsourcing everything.

If the JCC bid fails a full organisational reset is needed. Ideally with a strategic partner to support, but with the knowledge that partner would still try to get one over on the little guy.

Surprised little has been said about the BHP/Lundin Vicuna PEA announced today.

Clearly a massive deposit:

$9bn post-tax NPV(8%) at base metals prices ($4.60/lb copper, $3,300/oz gold**, $40/oz silver.)

$28bn post-tax NPV(8%) at SPOT metal prices.

However, huge initial Capex of $7bn.

And at base prices, the IRR is sub-15% and the payback period 8+ years.

To me, it makes the Cascabel PFS look very attractive? Let alone a PFS adjusted for revised base metals prices.

** gold price is roughly twice that used in Cascabel PFS

Just looked at volume since 29th Dec - c900m traded.

If you ignore JCC, BHP, NEM, Director holdings - total c1bn - the volume traded is roughly half of the remaining 2bn shares in issue.

Rodney - not much time, so quick thoughts:

Fine to allow for (huge) metals appreciation, but also need to allow for some - likely large - inflationary costs (petrol/diesel for example) within PFS.

Your Porvenir figure is a complete guess. We have no idea if economical or not (given Solgold paused the study and Scott has said "not as good as we had hoped" in a presentation, I doubt it is so high).

Other tenements are close to nil value at the moment. I think brokers had c$50m for the lot?

I've always objected to (earlier) comparisons to a de-risked NAV, since Solgold are far from de-risked. 50% haircut probably a bit light, but I don't disagree with 45p-65p at this current position.

Problem is, so far no-one has shown any interest in paying that. Which begs the questions, what do the majors / market know that we don't?

"Sh*t or get off the pot"

Could well be Franco/ Govt's recent message to the Solgold board!

And whilst we're talking Takeover Code...

I had understood that if JCC bid fails, they are 'locked-out' for 12 months.

This doesn't appear 100% true. There are some circumstances where JCC could bid again, such as:

(i) material change in circumstances

(ii) bid is deemed acceptable by SOLG board (which surely it would be, given they recommended a 28p bid)

+ other scenarios

I had always thought that an exit from Solgold, under Takeover Code, would be easy and transparent. However there are lots of additional scenarios that make it a more difficult decision.

No confusion from me MF.

My understanding is that a counter-bid CAN be made after the SoA Court Meeting (23rd Feb).

The Court Sanction hearing - 2nd March - is where final approval of Scheme is made and soon after SOLG shares are delisted.

I'm not saying it is common practice that a bid would arrive so late. Nor that this extension makes sense, given the Takeover Code timetable should flush out the interest. However my research suggests it is possible.

For anyone making an investment/disinvestment decision based on the TC timetable, I'd recommend taking some professional advice as lots of contradicting info out there.

@Mathersfinger - you asked me to clarify "under a Scheme of Arrangement, offers can arrive up to, and even after, the general meeting and Court date" a bit better.

You said "up to the court date with proof of intention, also funding is in place for that intention. Not after the court sitting which approves the JCC bid"

Actually a bid can be made, and accepted, AFTER the court sitting on 23rd Feb (approval of JCC Scheme). Whilst this needs the approval of Takeover Panel, and Solgold Board, it is (theoretically) possible if in best interests of shareholders - i.e. were there to be a much higher bid.

The Takeover Panel are contactable for queries: 020 7382 9026