George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. Watch the video here.
I guess I would just say for balance that signing an NDA doesn't immediately mean you can't trade the shares, it depends if you are actually in possession of inside information.
Under UK MAR inside information has to be of a precise nature, not be public, and if it were made public be likely to have a significant affect on the price of the shares in the market. So several of these points are open to interpretation...
Solg's latest iteration of its plans to bring in power from an as yet unconstructed hydro electric plant, subject to government permits. Would be confidential and proprietary, but is it precise? Would it have a significant effect on the share price if released? Probably not. Even some drill results often don't move the price much.
HR records for all the local staff, including salary bands, pension arrangements and notice periods? Confidential and precise, but would it in itself have a significant effect on the share price? I doubt it.
So it depends what parties have seen in the data room as to whether they are prevented from trading or not, and that decision will be up to them to determine.
What could be inside information is the fact that a specific party has access to the data room and is looking at specific details to do with the mine plans or company structure, because if made public it would definitely move the share price. So I guess we'll never get precise details of which parties have seen what.
Agreed and I wouldn't be surprised if they don't say anything more than what they already told Darren one-to-one and what was in that recent MJ article. All of which was extremely interesting, but I'm not going to hold my breath for anything ground breaking. They are doing this meeting as a result of Darren telling them they need better comms with PIs.
Actually Ray, don't bother answering that. Here's a suggestion for the pair of you: how about you both F off and end this pathetic feud that has been ruining this board for everyone else for over a year now.
Both of you Novice and Ray are utter imbeciles and the sooner you get banned from here the better. No one wants to read your petty bickering. No one cares. Neither of you can win. Neither of you can get one over on the other one. With each and every post you both just show yourselves to be even more puerile losers.
The Solgold conversation has practically ground to a halt here because of you two idiots along with Needalife's moronic contributions. Read the room Novice... A little bit of Solg conversation broke out then after a whole morning of your stupidity, and still you couldn't resist having another go at Ray.
Why don't you just ignore each other. Stop replying to each other. Stop mentioning each other. Stop making unsubtle references to each other. For everyone else's benefit, just stop.
The depressing thing is that I know you won't. You'll each reply to claim you're going to stop whilst making some backhanded dig at each other like the immature w ankers you both are.
You're as predictable as you are pathetic.
Agree DinnerMoney. Solg is a UK incorporated company so Canadian corporate law or government policy doesn't apply to it. Canada would have no jurisdiction to block the sale of Solg to any other entity.
At most, Solg is subject to the rules of the TSX as a listed issuer. What's the worst that could happen, they breach the rules and get delisted. Which be a moot point if Solg gets taken over because presumably the shares would be delisted from both LSE and TSX anyway on completion of the takeover.
Be careful of buying based on hype from Zak Mir... His pump and dump crew of Phil and Kevin from the Sunday Roast were all over this when it spiked up over 1.50 before. While they are still working the chat groups hard with their positive views they will have sold out before the inevitable drop off.
I'd prefer a decent and sustained rise without those cowboys involved.
https://twitter.com/BlakchinnieBlue/status/1637375298760065024?t=nOwerUnsrvVt2MXH1_rtUA&s=19
@ItsWarrenIrwin Warren, watched your Wild Expectations for Uranium interview where you mentioned $solg. You indicated that the sale may not happen which is a change from your previously bullish position. What caused you to go from trying to sell, to sale might not happen?
WI: Previous bullish position? SolGold is up for sale. Maxit is working hard on it. Bob Sangha has a lot of SolGold shares and is one of the best in the business to get it done. What more can you read in to the situation?
CB: Bigdude, the sale might not happen imply that a stumbling block has arisen, which could prevent the sale. Whereas trying to sell gives the impression the process is continuing with no adverse impediment at this time. I guess I am overthinking things here.
WI: Ya, I think you are overthinking things. We have a great deposit, great infrastructure, great banker and it almost always takes way longer than one would expect to conclude a deal. But, the numbers are big, so lots of due diligence is required.
Covgaz, market makers are still market participants trading for their own account using their own funds. They aren't some sort of unwanted stock repository where real investors can offload or pick up stock. So why should their buying and selling be negated by the market only reporting the opposite side of their trades?
They are making money from the spread so if they buy a stock from you they are incentivised to sell it to someone else for more than they bought it, or vice versa. At the end of the day if a market maker has built up a long position and needs to reduce that they are going to go into the market and sell stock, not to facilitate other investors dealing but for their own reasons. Therefore I would treat their activity equally with all other market participants' activity, meaning trades where a market maker is on one side shouldn't be reported any differently from any others. Every trade is a buy and a sell.
Also A trades don't involve market makers, they are trades between two direct participants in the order book. So literally a buyer and a seller matching.
SM, agreed. At the end of 2022 BlackRock had over $8 trillion in AUM... And inflows of over $100bn in Q4 alone.
I don't know why people get so het up about them. As I posted just before Christmas they've voted in favour of nearly all resolutions at the last few AGMs. They even voted in favour of Nick Mather's re-election when the majors were voting him down and causing him to quit as CEO.
Rich, every trade is a buy and a sell. The seller sells the shares and the buyer buys them. If you wanted to buy more shares, someone has to sell them to you. If you want to sell some shares, someone has to buy them off you.
You can't say that any trade is a buy or a sell because it's both. That's why they are just reported as a trade.
Under the Companies Act, treasury shares are shares that have been repurchased by the company using distributable profits pursuant to a share buyback scheme.
The CGP Solg shares have not been purchased in such a manner and definitely not using distributable profits. Therefore I don't think they are considered treasury shares under the Companies Act. They will just be an asset of the CGP entity that is now a Solg subsidiary.
I've always thought of the point of the royalty deal is that the company is giving away some of its future expected revenues in return for cash up front today. Solg banked $100m from FNV two years ago, and FNV get 1% of all future revenues whatever they may be once production has started.
Whereas an offtake agreement is to provide certainty of price between the seller and the buyer of goods/resources. For example Solg would agree to sell concentrate to an off-taker at an agreed price for a defined term in the future. This agreement could then be used to help secure financing from lenders who get comfort from the fact the company will have a "guaranteed" revenue stream in place with which it can service the cost of debt financing that the lenders extend.
Poison pill defences aren't allowed in the UK under the takeover code. As they allow the board of the company to frustrate an offer without it being put to shareholders.
Also it involves issuing more shares to existing shareholders.
Looks like NM will up their offer and NCM will be no more. NM will then be holding 10% of Solg... This just feels like any competitive tension as between NCM and BHP for Solg is now gone, can't see NCM bidding for Solg now and could see NM dumping the stake as non-core/low priority and without really having to worry about taking a loss on it since it would have been acquired through the takeover and not by them directly.
So good job we have Jiangxi onboard now to crank up the tension with BHP again!
If you're actually interested... the requirement to publish a Prospectus and the contents of it are set out in the UK Prospectus Regulation Rules which are our domestic implementation of the EU Prospectus Regulation. Prospectuses are required for offers of securities to the public or for admission of securities to the Regulated Market (i.e. the LSE main market). There are various exemptions especially for listing of further tranches of already listed shares... so I assume they either need to produce one here because the shares to be issued to CGP holders amount to more than 20% of the existing issued share capital (this threshold was discussed previously in relation to cash box placings iirc), or because they need to give disclosure about the takeover transaction to the offerees.
I also notice in the original RNS announcing the merger they expected the Prospectus to be filed in Q4 2022.... so come on Solgold, get it done and don't let everything keep slipping later and later please.
Here's a little Solgold fact for you to mull over.
Paul Bushell has resigned as a director of Solgold Finance AG, published as of 17 Jan. He was the external director who has been a copper and concentrates trader for decades and provides consultancy services in relation thereto.
I think that just leaves Nick Mather as the only director of Solgold Finance AG. Which is the Swiss entity that holds ENSA and Solg Ecuador.
So make of that what you will...
Quady, are you basing your view that NM only intends to sell DGR's Solg shares (and not his own, or sell Cascabel or sell the whole of Solgold) on his comments at the Noosa mining conference in 2022?
What he actually said was "We set these up in companies which get finance, get listed... Some of them emerge quicker than others, but the basic idea and a model that we've been following for some years is to create companies around very very large resource projects and then ultimately, majors seem to take them over. That's certainly the plan in respect of Solgold."
I don't think that's evidence of a plan to just sell DGR's shares, or that he is planning a JV. It could equally well imply that they intend to sell Cascabel, or to sell the whole of Solgold. Is he referring to the majors taking over the resource, or the company it's wrapped in?
What I think this does confirm is that the official plan is no longer for Solg to take Cascabel to production on its own. Clearly he intends that a major is going to take it to production, following some sort of corporate action (as referenced elsewhere in the DGR presentations). How that will look remains to be seen.