Member Info for NotMuchMoney

FTJNY - but redknight hasn't "stayed long and strong".

He apparently significantly averaged down. i.e. selling and then buying lower.

Trading his book whilst ramping away, coming up with regular fantasy ideas (I know, he'll call them opinions and speculation) that often contradict each other.

And then says other PIs "only have themselves to blame" if they didn't also average down and are left with high averages.

Anyone that has a different opinion, or highlights inaccuracies in what he says, is blocked.

I think I'm a reasonably tolerant person, but arrogance and hypocrisy are two traits I'm not a fan of.

Redknight has those traits in spades.

Pbow - that's good to hear!

A bit unsure whether SOLG will need to do another PFS incorporating (hopefully) a starter-mine at TAM, or whether this could all be incorporated (via an updated TAM MRE) in a 'final' DFS in Q4 / early Q1?

I suspect a fair amount of additional drilling would be required at TAM to get to DFS-standard? And a fair amount of Cascabel redesign as you mention.

Hopefully G-mining can do this much quicker than it took the company / SRK Consulting with the Feb-24 PFS.

Or say to a major - look, we can't be bothered to do all this only for it to go in the bin when you buy us - how about a decent offer now?!

Personally I disagree with a deal of 0.8-1.1 of 164p NAV (which suggests assets totalling £5bn).

Firstly because I think £5bn - i.e. c$7bn - is a bit toppy - even with revised metals prices and increased size of resource and Porvenir included.

Secondly because I don't see the logic in a bidder paying close to or more than 'fair value' for the asset. They need to allow for risk, stage of development/production etc.

My back-of-the-envelope is c$5bn asset, so c£3.5bn (just for Cascabel, including TAM). Then 35%-50% at PFS/DFS/start of construction stage.

So 40p-60p AT THIS STAGE. Pretty close to brokers.

Of course, will be much higher as Cascabel gets to production, which may be 18-24 months. And higher again for or any competitive bidding pressure.

Just my opinion. I won't be offended if others find fault with this or have different views.

So Quady - reflecting on that - did you need to ridicule various posters who were making reference to NAV? Even after they stated brokers use NAV.

No surprise the broker NAV is lower than a 'potential' NAV posters can rationalise. The broker NAV would be based on current studies, have allowances for risk etc. Whereas other estimates on this board may include spot-metal prices as opposed to PFS prices, the full resource as opposed to that used in capex-light PFS etc.

Hi Fort

My post was based on 8 holes remaining at 15th Aug. (18 planned, we've had results for 6, 4 holes are complete and assays sent for testing).

They have 4 rigs. Each hole c250m on average.

So I'd estimate a week to complete a hole (and move rig to next hole), then a week to two weeks for assays.

Hence why I thought it would be tight to get all assays reported by end-August.

Of course the holes are relatively shallow compared to those for Alpala, and some holes share a drill location/pad, so assuming decent turnaround of assays it may all be possible by end-Aug.

The RNS of 15th Aug certainly suggests management are confident of this being possible by end-Aug.

Fort, I found the 15th Aug RNS a bit unclear on timescales, given we know drilling is behind original plan:

Solgold said:

"Holes TAD-57, TAD-59, TAD-60 and TAD-61 have been completed, and all the core samples have already been sent to the laboratory for analysis. When the assay results from the entire hole (s) are received, they will be published."

and

"NEXT STEPS...

- Receive and report assays from Hole 57 and other pending holes in August"

I presume hole 57 is explicitly mentioned above as this was sent for assay testing first? But why not simply say 'complete drilling and report assays by end-August'?

Hopefully two more RNSs to come - one tomorrow (?) and one next Friday (?). But suspect that is optimistic.

DBW - scraping the barrel a bit to say BBG / Jack / Panda knows plenty about the process.

He's done nothing to demonstrate an understanding or even having read the detailed documents Solgold produce.

All he does is constantly speculate, regularly being proved wrong.

Stackhigher - "But no doubt you'll have scuttled off or changed username by then. You rampers are all the same"

But you're the one who has been here less than 10 months? Likely with yet another changed username?

And (some of) the rampers you're calling out have been through the ups and downs of Solgold over the last 5+ years?

I used to appreciate your contrarian views, always valuable to consider a different opinion, but I can't understand your recent deramping.

With limited justification. And regularly proved wrong, which you can't seem to admit.

Odd.

And re: his low average, apparently selling on the drop (whilst still ramping here)...

In June, if I sold my entire holding (average at 20p) and rebought 5mins later, I'd have a new average of 7p. I guess that would make me a trading genius like redknight is.

Rodney - redknight has always thought he is better than others here.

Anyone who offers a different view or challenge, or points out his flip-flopping, is filtered.

It's curious - all the spiel about his background and expertise. But his 'C' in A-level Maths never gets mentioned?

May explain the occasional error in his calcs / projections.

Good work Damers, great visibility for Solgold.

Agreed Orthern.

Although I'm not sure yesterday's tweet re: Zak Mir's ("top technical analyst"!) Bulletin Board heroes was needed.

Would rather focus on the fundamentals than the day traders.

Anything to get the volumes up though.

TomHH, JBCo, RalphB1,

Interesting re: FXPO.

Is this group ramping the same as you did for SAE?

"10p tomorrow etc."

But those who bought yesterday morning are down 35% currently?

I'll stick with Solgold thanks. Exceptional reward vs. risk here.

Swanley. Wasn't the July-24 high about 11.8p? We're above that.

Could it not be the c6.5p lows, where anyone getting in at those levels is now taking profits / de-risking at c100% return? Appreciate volumes are prob too high to be explained by that alone.

Hi addicknt

Contraversial opinion here, but I'd have no problem with the company placing $20m with IIs to progress the (priority) regionals. Recent volume suggests demand is there, potentially at a premium to current SP?

With the exploration fee uncertainty it is unclear how long ExploreCo South will take to finalise and finance. Would be better to get Porvenir PEA completed and then the ExploreCo proposition becomes more valuable?

Redknight has been providing some useful updates, but as usual I'd urge caution on the accuracy of some of his statements.

He tends to get giddy with excitement and miss or misinterpret details.

Yesterday he said "32.6 million shares traded so far today... Apart from the Cascabel PFS in 2024 and the Jiangxi trade sale day, thats a 5 year high"

Anyone can do a a quick check of the volume graph to see the following days above 40m:

24/3/25 - 161m - Jiangxi

15/7/24 - 41m

29/2/24 - 76m - after PFS / new Directors

25/10/23 - 45m

6/12/22 - 45m

5/2/21 - 41m

I know - the message is still valid - volumes are much better and there is strong demand. Happy days.

It is just that redknight's justifications regularly have errors. Sometimes innocent, other times probably reflecting his trading (cough - averaging down - cough).

I don't believe Scott was anything more than a puppet for Bob and others (including Nick?) trying to force a sale.

Most likely capable on technical aspects, but poor as a leader and dealing with markets/stakeholders. Which is why the Strategic Review was led by Dan.

I've mentioned before we have no idea how progressed the SR was. Whether anyone moved the goalposts at the last minute. What was it the ex-CEO of Glencore said? Major's objective is to screw the juniors?

Anyhow, very grateful to finally being able to enjoy the effects of a management change.

Thanks schlemiel, some really useful posts this morning.

(vs. the usual climate change noise. Some great progress and news recently, and more news to come in coming weeks, and yet the weekend posts are about climate!)

Apols typo, the additional Pit 1 holes are 56 and 57, not 57 and 58.

Yes pbow. Samples from 5 holes have been sent for assaying (suspect not all of these holes have completed drilling though, as last RNS said 7 complete and we have results from 3 already).

The interesting assay will be hole 55, given this will be the first (2025) result from Pit 2. Hole 55 is already drilled, hole 58 also in pit 2 was in progress last week.

I guess it may be more important to get more decent grades in Pit 1 - so hole results 57 and 58. I.e. better to have one fantastic pit to start on, and anything in Pit 2 is a bonus in future.

Exciting times again.