Member Info for NotMuchMoney

Rodney - I completely agree that Retail should (and potentially legally must?) be given more clarity on the reasons for the sale. Rather than the opaque - 'it could cost a bit more' and 'other strategies... like regional spin-out... carry some risk'.

Most retail understand the risks of developing an asset. But we need more specifics, and more clarity on how much of the asset can be economically developed at current metals prices, and what the initial capex costs to get started are.

However, I'm resigned to not getting that information. The comms (including the U-turn from 26p is far too low to 28p is fine) have been poor, and the Scheme document doesn't enable retail to make an informed decision. Appears to be radio silence from the company on investor concerns as well.

Unless the Scheme can be challenged at the hearing as being materially incomplete, and the concerns of retail are explicitly expressed, it won't matter.

The question is how those concerns can be raised.

Rodney - it is an interesting point you (repeatedly) make. How are you intending to raise this to the Court?

On the one hand, I believe there are fundamental questions (the Whats and Whys) that retail shareholders should be entitled to be answered when voting on a sale of the company.

On the other hand, I don't believe a company needs to 'open it's books' to the public, in particular for studies or statregies that are incomplete, and it is reasonable to refer back to historical communications to the market.

The Board appear to believe, presumably on advice, the bare minimum is acceptable.

The challenge I have is that major stakeholders like JCC, BHP and NEM, plus Maxit, DGR through Nick, will have more clarity on the Pros and Cons of going it alone. Particularly JJC from their technical support and advice.

If, IF, there is any new downside risk that has emerged over the last 3-6 months, the Board has a duty to report to all shareholders consistently.

No need for the 28p frustrations to boil over.

Still over a fortnight for a potential counter-offer.

If that doesn't materialise, I'd have to assume the asset CURRENTLY isn't as great as has been made out (at least in terms of potential technical risk, ongoing political risk, large initial Capex spend).

I'd then have to make a tough decision on whether to continue the de-risking journey. But that is a decision that depends on many other things over the next few months.

Didn't think Nick could vote against, given his irrevocable undertakings? Aren't these legally binding? (subject to other defined events, e.g. a 3rd party bid, not occurring)

It gives JCC one week - under current takeover panel timetable - to come back with a better offer or a strong possibility the deal is rejected.

JCC must be getting nervous now. Particularly with Gold and Copper metal prices over last month making the deal look worse and worse.

The thing is, if no revised bid and no competing bid, what next? Continue to de-risk and try again in 12 months?

To be fair Rodney, when a few posters expressed dissatisfaction at lack of news in Q4 (vs. communicated and expected milestones), they were met with accusations of "are you not happy with management?", "why are you still a shareholder if you're unhappy?"

Remember CIPA, ExploreCo, ESIA, tranche 3 etc?

Turns out some of those concerns were correct.

Indi123 - very unlikely to be true. JPM simply oscillating just above and below the 5% threshold (threshold for them as fund managers).

Also contradicts Rodney's previous theory that "below minimum threshold" meant 'not above 6%'. The RNSs show JPM going above and below 5%.

Rodney - Dan could say the post-tax NPV, allowing for Tandayama and updated metals prices, is $5bn.

It doesn't mean the MCap should now be $5bn, and SP re-rate to that.

Same with the derisked NAV. And same with RISK-ADJUSTED broker valuations / price targets.

Genuinely amazed some investors look at a single upside scenario, which we don't have complete information on, to form their valuation.

Don't get me wrong, I think 28p is too low for current progress/resource. But a key limitation is I don't have complete information on items like revised mine design and costs (TSF, power), relationship with Govt and Franco etc, to determine what fair value is.

Rodney - interesting emails.

Can you explain the "competitive process or observable market testing" point? What exactly are shareholders expecting when a substantial shareholder makes a bid? Presumably much of this market-testing was via the Strategic Review, and POTENTIALLY this concluded not a lof interest (at these risk levels, hence the focus on de-risking over much of 2025).

Hi Rodney. Thanks for remembering... post copied below:

"I presume your Share Register is from current Bloomberg holdings data?

If so, would be grateful if you could post what % is still held via nominee accounts? Would give an idea of shares still in private investor hands (vs. those selling out or reducing exposure recently)."

Rcgl2, re: "we'd still be back at 28p but just much later".

Personally this doesn't worry me. It provides an extended time period for other interested parties to make a move, SP to reflect recent metals appreciation, and (realistically) the company to provide further drilling updates / confirm CIPA etc. i.e. more value-add events.

The company has the funds, at least according to end-Sep MD&A, to proceed with these activities across 2026.

Hi RCGL2

Don't forget if JCC get over a 30% holding (e.g. they take BHP and NEM stake) they are obliged to make an offer under Takeover Code.

This offer must be a minimum of what JCC or concert parties had paid over the previous 12 months.

Now, I don't know who has been buying at 28p (i.e. the highest price that JCC have paid), but very unlikely in my view that this offer would be sub 28p.

So in my view this is a strong safety net if the acquisition doesn't go through at 28p.

I was uncertain given you had said you had sold down your holding, which was at odds with your previous statements re: nailed-on counterbids.

PS - with the logic being if there is no counterbid before scheme vote, you want the security of 28p?

The main advantage of voting early is that you reduce the risk of your platform (ii, HL, etc) taking too long with the admin and missing the vote cut-off date.

Platform/broker deadlines are usually much earlier than official date in Scheme Doc.

If you change your mind in future (e.g. new info becomes available) you can always re-submit different voting instructions.

AROK - I believe the board did whatever was needed over 2025 to get a Chinese/JCC bid. In the hope this would encourage competing bids from BHP/others. Then let the market determine a final fair selling price, against a backdrop of surging metal demand.

Currently that appears to have been a poor strategy.

A month or two to find out if majors/mids thinks 28p is a fair price or an opportunity too good to pass up.

Pbow - the scheme document notes (S10.2) state the financial and broker fees depend on whether they acquisition becomes effective.

But of course, we don't know if fixed/success split is £1m/£18m or £18m/£1m.

Lots of information I believe the Board should be supplying to inform the vote. But I don't think it will be shared.

Wait and 'hope' is all that is left. Very much the Solgold mantra over the years.

Hi Pbow. I posted yesterday, that I believe majority of the advisor and broker fees quoted in scheme document are success-based.

I.e. will only be payable if JCC bid is successful.

Of course we don't know how much has been spent recently on TAM drilling.

Nor how far away the company is from the third tranche of Franco funds.

Nor implications from the mining service fee (TASA).

Things I believe the board should provide clarity on, before shareholders can vote on a 28p offer.

RICH3R, oh no, can't believe it has got to 1,000!

Hopefully will be done (whether at 28p or an improved bid) before 1,100 posts!

I thought I saw a post recently suggesting the Scheme (or other recently published...) docs showed no impact on regionals from the new Mining Service Fee (TASA).

I've been through the Scheme doc and can't find any reference to this. Has anyone seen reference to this as part of JCC bid / reasons for recommending offer etc?