Firering Strategic Minerals: From explorer to producer. Watch the video here.
From the RNS on 8 July about Rio: "Drilling is expected to commence as soon as the construction is finished in about two months."
So they did pretty much already tell us this was happening around now.
Great that it has actually happened on time for once! So much news in the pipeline to come this quarter as others have said.
Not entirely sure what to make of it tbh.
On the one hand, I agree with addicknt, this seems to undermine what Mike Henry was saying the other day about not throwing money at acquisitions. If they valued it at 55c, and now Twiggy is offering 70c and BHP claim they won't walk away from the fight, it suggests they will actually throw money at it to win the day. This would seem to tell anyone invested in Solg that if BHP make an initial offer, it would be madness to accept because they can and will increase their offer to get what they want if they aren't successful first time around. In a general sense also agree with Jerry, it shows that future facing metals like copper are going to be a key battle ground for the majors over the next few years.
On the other hand, I also have a slight feeling that BHP getting stuck into a bruising and costly battle with Fortescue over this one isn't great for the prospectus of a mega Solg bid because they aren't going to want to have to keep repeating the experience. Once bitten, twice shy so to speak. If they get Noront, will they really be keen for another bidding war so soon afterwards with Solg?
Maybe the best outcome here is that BHP fail to land Noront. They will have proven that they are willing to up their offers and fight for acquisitions, but if they don't manage to get Noront then the pressure is on Henry to show that BHP are serious players and he will need to bag a big future facing metals acquisition as soon as he can. And before all their competitors swoop in to take them from under their noses.
In what way has it been manipulated? Because the number of sellers has outnumbered the number of buyers? Anyone is free to buy and sell as they choose, provided they aren't doing anything illegal. I doubt people were worrying it was "manipulated" when they were piling in at 1.20p after it had gone up 5x. There is no shadowy cabal of evil bankers who are spending vast amounts of time and effort to manipulate ORR shares to rob you of a few thousand quid. It's just a micro-cap AIM stock, it's highly volatile. Either sell out here and take the loss and a lesson, or hold and wait for value to be realised - in which case you will be in the same boat as Tim Livesey who just put another few grand into the stock down around these prices.
Hi Colonel. Yes I am, although in my opinion the public perception of dark pools is a lot worse than the actual reality. Obviously the name dark pool sounds ominous, and there is a view that they are used as some sort of shadowy way for hedge funds etc to completely screw retail investors. I guess a lot of people don't realise that some of the largest dark venues are actually run by the main exchanges, such as LSE's Turquoise which has dark segments. The difference between dark and lit is that there is no pre-trade transparency on the dark venues... all the trades still get transaction reported afterwards, so they will still be visible after they have happened. Where I work we are a systematic internaliser (post MIFID 2) in most of the instruments we trade - you can also see SIs as dark liquidity because the dealer is matching client orders against its own book.
I think the FCA is keen to overhaul the rules now we are out of the EU, I'm pretty sure they want to encourage more dark trading as they announced they would get rid of the volume limits on how much of a shares trading can be traded on dark venues. Do I think that illegal practices go on as you mentioned? Maybe but I very much doubt it happens at any big or mid size firms.
Anyway, all of this boring stuff aside, another very decent day for Solg, did we just close at 29p?
For all the constant talk of "manipulation" and "someone's holding this in a range" etc, when you look at the daily volume, there are enough PIs on this board and the telegram and other groups who admit they are trading this to explain the fact it just bounces around between low 20s and mid 30s.
The number of times now I've seen PIs saying things like "I'm mainly out now guys, bored of waiting and seeing better opportunities elsewhere, just sold 300k shares but will keep 100k in the back pocket"...
I don't think it's nasty evil institutions who are sitting on the SP, it's just PIs. What institutions aren't doing at the moment is buying in enough volume to actually push the price up regardless of what PIs do. But I guess it's mentally easier for people to tell themselves that the share they own is being nefariously held down rather than just not being bought.
The closed period relates to the upcoming release of financial results, i.e. the annual or interim financials. The directors can't trade in the period prior to release.
Regardless of the financials, directors and indeed anyone is prohibited from trading when they are in possession of material non-public information. So if TL has drill got drill results that have not been made public and would have be likely to have an effect on the SP once made public, he cannot trade the shares.
But any upcoming closed period for the financials won't prevent release of further drilling results as they get them. Guess you could infer from the fact TL has just bought that they currently do not have any unreleased drilling results, but doesn't mean none are in the pipeline.
Hi Talatum - " but it seems no one ,not yet anyway, needs Solgold" - I wouldn't say that. NCM took a 13% stake, which they reviewed last year and decided to maintain. BHP took a 13% stake. Only last year, Franco pumped $100m into Cascabel, with an option for $50m more. A couple of months ago, both BHP and NCM participated in the placing in order to maintain their stakes.
Just because a bid for the company hasn't happened doesn't mean no one is interested. Zooming out a little that's 3 pretty major players all showing and continuing to show strong interest in Solg.
Warren Irwin made an interesting comment recently, I can't remember where, but it was something along the lines that now Solg and CGP are best buds again, it means that Solg effectively have the benefit of Bob Sangha's expertise and input as (in WI's view) one of the most experienced mining industry dealmakers around. Sangha/Maxit being one of the major CGP shareholders. You would imagine that Sangha will want a corporate transaction, it's what he does.
Regardless of my own feelings in the perpetual production vs takeover debate, that does seem to suggest that CGP and WI are happy with the current situation because a deal of some sort is brewing, whether for CGP or Cascabel or Solg itself.
Companies nearly always overpay for acquisitions. It's been shown time and again that takeovers are often value destructive for the acquirer. They pay too much, they take on too much debt to fund it, the mythical "synergies" don't materialise, unexpected surprises come out of the woodwork, integration issues become costly or insurmountable and so on...
So what makes BHP so different? How do we know that BHP possesses the skills to calibrate their bid perfectly to the exact value that would represent "fair value" for Solg, if such a concept can even be defined precisely, which it probably can't? Do BHP have access to financial advisers who weren't available on literally every previous takeover deal ever? No, it will be the same advisers who advise on all deals. Is there something about a mining deal with the heavily defined resource analysis that makes it easier to value the assets, unlike for example a media or manufacturing company? Not sure there is since most targets have years of fully audited accounts, sales figures etc behind them.
Is it down to CEO ego? A huge part of why companies overpay for acquisitions seems to be down to management hubris, empire building and compensation incentives. Are we saying that Mike Henry is an egoless Warren Buffet style capital allocator who ruthlessly enforces financial discipline and will actually respect all the PR talk he's just pumped out in the press about not wanting to overpay for assets?
The drilling happens and people are complaining that the results aren't out quick enough, even though it takes weeks/months to process and assay.
Then drilling stops and analysis is underway but results haven't been released and people are saying it must be bad news, bad results being held back, BoD aren't doing enough to meet investor expectations.
Now results are coming through, as demanded, and people are saying the BoD are releasing too many results, just attempting to jack the SP up, dilution on way...
It's a junior explorer! A fund raise is always somewhere on the horizon, that's how it works. Results so far have been positive I reckon, let's try not to talk it all down too much!
Yes I think the Sedar website was coded by Charles Babbage. See if this link works for Solg filings
https://www.sedar.com/DisplayCompanyDocuments.do?lang=EN&issuerNo=00043090
Scroll down to 25 Oct 2018, the SSA is filed as Material Document(s)
Addicknt - yes, I believe the SSA is still extant. The 2 year standstill is just one part of the terms, amongst other things.
The wording of the clause is "for so long as the Subscriber (by itself, its Parent or by a Wholly-owned Subsidiary of the Subscriber or its Parent) holds at least 10% of the fully paid Shares of the Company (Minimum Shareholding), then the Subscriber may at any time, but is not obliged to, nominate one person to be appointed as a director of the Company (Subscriber Representative)."
There is no proviso about a time limit of 2 years and no connection to the Standstill clause which is a separate provision of the SSA. The only provisos are about the minimum shareholding.