Member Info for NotMuchMoney

RodneyT - re: your 19:05 post on options, I don't know where you get your data from at times.

Is it all from AI?

You say "All of these figures and details are extracts from the Company's own published documents."

Well, the Q3 2022 MD&A, i.e. end-Sep 2022 before Scott became CEO in November, shows 42,250,000 options outstanding.

Not the "19m" you state.

I understand the point you are making about 'free money' to recent CEOs etc, and the intrinsic value of these options. I get it. But the point comes across better if your data is accurate.

Zoros - what do you believe the Alpala IRR to be on current copper and gold prices?

What do you believe is the additional value of TAM and the capex required to get a TAM starter pit into production?

Personally I believe there is incredible, albeit long-term, value at Sogold. Not without risk of course. But huge potential upside.

Time will tell if a western major will seize the opportunity. Or leave it to complain in 5-10 years that China have all the resources to themselves.

RodneyT - I would advise against "muddying the waters" by going back to March 2025 and JCC's share purchase.

The key CURRENT concern (in my opinion) is that shareholders should be able to make an informed decision on whether 28p represents 'fair value' (reward vs. risk), based on complete and accurate information. At a minimum the same information that JCC, BHP, NEM, Maxit and DGR have been provided.

(The Board were well within their rights to place the JCC shares in March, at a premium to SP, in part choosing JCC to avoid BHP or NEM gaining more influence and 'benefiting' from JCC technical support. Arguably these funds allowed SOLG to get moving again, further exploration of TAM and raise the SP over the last 9 months).

Hi Pbow. Out of curiosity, why the change? Do you interpret the recent TR1s as suggesting a chance of improved offer / competing bid?

I'm not sure mattlilly understands...

Look at the form:

5.05% of voting rights ATTACHED TO SHARES

0.09% through financial instruments (c3m shares via new equity swaps)

RodneyT - don't forget the company gave an update on the TAM resource (MRE#4) on 26th November.

(Albeit disappointment they didn't include standalone TAM project economics, or incorporate into an updated Cascabel PFS, but suspect too early for that).

The issue is the Board needs to confirm there is no 'new' news.

The absence of news itself can be price-sensitive. 'Imagine' a company saying lots of important progress will be made in Q3 and Q4 (cough... CIPA, ExploreCo, ESIA, early portal works etc.).

Then Q3 and Q4 comes and goes with no updates on these.

Shareholders are left asking - has there been any progress or not?

Equally, why the sudden flip from go-it-alone, TAM starter, ExploreCo to create value, to then suggest too much risk and 28p is fair value?

Incredibly poor.

Quady:

QUBE RNS yesterday showed 60.6m (derivatives)

Today's QUBE RNS shows 66.9m (derivatives) with a breakdown of the 6.3m INCREASE IN LONG POSITION.

This is not rocket science.

Quady - don't have time to dwell on this point, but you had said:

"Qube used financial instruments (swaps) ... profiting from the resulting price appreciation..."

Today's RNS shows Qube going Long on Swaps at c28p. Where is your evidence for their profit / price appreciation on this trade?

Cop-out reply as expected.

An RNS - at noon or 1pm - would be public information available to all parties at the same time. Not difficult.

Form 8.3 is for dealings for the 1%+ holders.

Form 8.5 is intermediaries and exempt traders.

JCC themselves have not disclosed they have bought stock at 28.1p.

Quady - how are Qube benefitting when the average price of their swap purchases yesterday is c28p. i.e. same as offer price?

Hi addicknt. I think it is very generous to say the Board "gave us a clue in the document"!

The 2 main 'clues' were:

1. "the need to raise significant additional capital, the terms of which are uncertain". Raising capital is part of developing an asset, terms are always going to be uncertain. Good progress has been made with Franco/Osisko. Plus the capex-light open pit starter at TAM.

Of course, "significant additional capital" could mean other things - initial Capex is above that expected (for example diesel increases, additional cost of building a power source, infrastructure at both Alpala and TAM).

2. "risks associated with alternative strategic options to deliver greater value". Is this referring to challenges with ExploreCo due to Mining Law and concession fees?

I think an investor could read the reasons for the recommendation and come up with 20 potential reasons for the sale.

I don't believe PIs should be guessing to determine whether 28p reflects fair value or not. The Board should be providing a bit more clarity.

PS - I think the JCC block would be pretty isolated in voting against.

Obviously we don't know for sure that JCC SoA would pass. But current SP suggests it would pass, and majority would simply flip to the higher offer.

I hope to see this theory tested!

ProfitSniffer - would be interested to know why you think an alternative bidder needs a c15% holding to counter JCC?

In my simplistic mind, whatever their holding, if they offer a premium to 28p they would be the preferred bidder. I.e. BHP, NEM, Maxit, DGR ..all flip in favour of that higher offer? Retail prefer that to JCC.

No significant benefit in them accumulating at 28p. Sure, they get a few more votes and a slight saving on the final offer price. But small current holding doesn't prevent a bid from a credible party.

Not quite Quady. What you wrote is:

"[1] Then enough people vote against the sale that means the bid fails.

[2] All that happens then is Jiangxi approach the brokers and then buy the blocks of shares they are holding after the bid fails.

[3] Then they work out if enough acceptances were offered to get them past the 50% mark.

[4] If so they have acquired Solgold."

Nowhere between steps [2] and [4] have you mentioned the need for another bid and vote on Scheme of Arrangement.

You may have meant this, but it is not what you have said.

Quady - if the 28p bid fails because JCC don't have required support then it has failed.

They can't just buy other holdings and force 28p through.

They would need to make a new, higher bid and try to get this through (and with any additional shares they have purchases in the mean time, which would need to be disclosed).

Asset managers like L&G aren't buying £0.5m chunks for a £5k (1%) gain in 2+ months time.

They could get a better return in cash / bond markets.

Also this is not a 'risk-free' arbitrage opportunity. 1% not worth the 'risk'.

In my opinion some in the market are expecting an improved or competing offer to arrive.

Pbow - no doubt there will be an avalanche of approvals once(if) JCC get the SoA through!

It is why I find the timing so frustrating (and effective for JCC). CIPA is a significant derisking event and increases the price JCC / others should be paying once granted.

Thank you RodneyT. I was unclear why you were mentioning 1986 Companies Act when main legislation is now 2006 Companies Act.

Appreciate the unfair prejudice and improper purpose items are still part of 2006 Act.