Member Info for rcgl2

So you are earthling then. Lol.

earthling, if you hate the company so much, think the management have done such a poor job and you don't even think the assets in the ground are very good, then what is the point of being invested in Solg? And why bother wasting everyone's time incessantly arguing with people on here? This board has been a better place since you got banned. I wish you'd pipe down and go away. And don't bother to call me a keyboard warrior or challenge me to come up north and meet you face to face in a car park, we've heard it all before too many times.

Lunch, completely agree. There's absolutely no basis to claim that the 1,500,000 share options were exercised by NM, particularly as there were no regulatory filings in the UK or Canada, which there would have had to be if he acquired 1.5m shares as a director.

And also RK, you fail to mention that the 300k shares were not sold by NM personally but were sold by the Mather Foundation in order to fund it's charitable donations. The RNS clearly states the foundation is obliged to sell assets to fund these donations and it's year end is 30 June, so hardly controversial that it disposed of these shares in June.

Addicknt that's exactly what I was going to ask. If they're going to have to build all the infrastructure, processing, transport etc for Alpala anyway...

Topped up yesterday, despite telling myself twice before I wouldn't buy any more. Would have loved to buy in the 21s but funds didn't clear in time. I didn't expect to be in the low 20s again but since we are here I thought I'd take advantage.

"With the recent appointment of a new CEO and MD Darryl Cuzzubbo starting on 1st December 2021, SolGold has determined to delay the release of the PFS. This will enable confirmation of various assumptions impacting the PFS, including whether what are currently considered as upside options should in fact be further evaluated and incorporated as part of the PFS base case so as to provide a more indicative and robust value of the Cascabel project. Upside options under review include earlier underground access, mine and mill optimisations, extending Cascabel Resources, hydroelectric power, among others, offering further optionality and potential for improved economics.

Subject to the determination on the above assumptions, the PFS is well progressed and SolGold anticipates that it will support management's expectations of a robust and prospective project."

My reading is, if they published today there would be the base case, which would result in NPV X, IRR Y, payback period Z and so on, and alongside that are various potential upside options which in time could result in the base case being improved to even better values than X, Y and Z. When they say "whether what are currently considered as upside options should in fact be further evaluated and incorporated as part of the PFS base case" aren't they just saying why go and seek financing based on NPV X when it may or may not ultimately be X+3%, we might as well just do that extra work now and go and seek financing with X+3% from the start (or exclude it, in which case no change and we use X but at least it's more concrete).

Also it seems like a lot of people discuss whether Cascabel is economic as a binary issue, it either is or is not economic. I don't think that's the case, doesn't it depend who is mining it? I assume there is a cut off point where it becomes un-economic for Solg to mine it, but not for BHP, because BHP will be able to raise more financing at a cheaper cost than Solg can. Someone posted an article the other day discussing how to assess feasibility studies, the point was made in that article that banks will usually require an IRR of 15% to finance a project, but the supermajors will be able to arrange financing with less than a 15% IRR.

If there is a spectrum of outcomes from not economic for anyone to mine, economic for BHP/another major to mine but not Solg, through to economic for Solg to mine, wouldn't that dictate what Solg does next. Attempt to finance production themselves or somehow sell/JV the whole thing to a major?

Also the target company isn't allowed under the Takeover Code to take action during an offer period with the intention of frustrating the offer, unless it is approved by a meeting of shareholders. Issuing a load more shares to new investors just so they can vote no to an offer could effectively be taking away the right of existing shareholders to accept the bid.

Thanks for your replies RK. Definitely a lot going on that I can't really get my head around and doubt we will ever find out what the real motivations were.

"If he has the other major holders support he doesn't NEED to launch an attack." A good point. Maybe if he hadn't said anything, BHP might have gone public and called for all directors to be put up for re-election, or NM to be put up in light of last year's voting figures, all in the name of good corporate governance. Would that have put the other major shareholders over a barrel because they might have been under pressure then to vote him off due to corporate governance concerns (especially if their proxy advisors were telling them to). Perhaps they felt that although the NM situation wasn't ideal, they didn't want the instability of an angry renegade Nick Mather on the warpath having been humiliated a second time by being booted off the board. He does control a fairly large chunk of the shares and it's probably better right now to have him in the tent peeing outwards rather than outside. Twigger going public first could have just saved the other institutional holders from having to make the decision, NM is not up for re-election, nothing concrete has been put forward by BHP so everyone just maintains the status quo for now.

I'm probably massively overthinking that!

HI addicknt, ok yes I take your point. They said "Upside options under review include earlier underground access, mine and mill optimisations, extending Cascabel Resources, hydroelectric power, among others." Extending Cascabel Resources I read as including as much of TAM as possible. I guess my point was though that if you had the choice of a) publish now with no further optimizations because you are under pressure to publish due to a previous delay, or b) hold off publishing for 3-6 months to include those optimizations, maybe the better choice is actually b) in the grand scheme of things. You have to make the best decision for now, not be hamstrung by the past. Given the AGM is coming up and the board have just spent months consulting with all the major shareholders, doesn't that suggest that the major shareholders are also supportive of option b)?

RedKnight - I have some questions to ask you about your views on Twigger. This isn't meant as a personal attack or to start a blazing row, I'm sure our views in the main are aligned. Since you post your thoughts in detail let's discuss.

After your CG meeting with Twigger and Elodie you said "I must say that I found the Chairman and Elodie refreshingly candid," and "I was very impressed with these two Directors. Not only were they refreshingly honest and straightforward, but they were aware of the major issues, partly through their repeated occurrence during the Investor calls," and "I can tell you that I was very impressed by Twigger and Elodie and have been by all the appointments so far. The Chairman and The Board know clearly what they have to do and its just a matter of how they get there..."

Your view now seems to be that Twigger has presided over a disaster of epic proportions and must go. Since your meeting and now they have actually appointed a new CEO and continue to progress the regional targets, with Rio looking very promising. Obviously the PFS delay is disappointing, but to be honest, TAM keeps growing and clearly needs to be factored into the overall PFS, the question is when do you draw the cut off for publishing the PFS with some of TAM yet to be proved up. It seems madness to pull the trigger on that days before the CEO actually joins, rather than giving him (with all the experience he has been hired for) a chance to input on that decision himself. It's not as if the PFS is "wrong" and needs redrafting, which seemed to be the case on the previous delay, it just has the potential to be further optimized - I don't think the fact that they made poor decisions on the first attempt is reason to make another poor decision again just to flatter the timeline by a few months, if delaying to optimize is in itself the better option here.

Is it because of his decision to publicly challenge BHP, potentially antagonising them before a crucial AGM? Twigger is a seasoned investment banker with bags of experience in the resource M&A sector, surely that experience is exactly what you need heading the Solg board at this crucial time when it may be the target of corporate action? He must know what he's doing publishing letters like that. Him being up for re-election, why on earth would he launch an attack on BHP if he didn't know he could rely on the other major holders to support him at the AGM? It would be suicide otherwise.

Also, having been trying to interview candidates remotely by webcam for a junior role recently, I can't imagine how hard it must have been to make such a crucial appointment as CEO without face to face interviews. I'm not surprised it took all year.

I don't think this means Solg now has to go out and immediately raise $2.5bn and an extra $430m in one go. I think it means that they are committing to invest $430m over the next ten years on certain aspects of the mine building process (such as local employment, environmental stewardship as DBW just said) in return to certain guarantees and potentially favourable tax treatments from the govt.

Some of the $430m is part of the capex they are already due to raise and spend on constructing the mine. Maybe some will come further down the line if production gets going.

Anyone building and operating the mine at Cascabel will by definition be investing billions into the local economy.

The big positive for me of this agreement is the clear commitment of the govt to support the development of Cascabel.

Hi Italian. The amounts given are the nominal amounts, they are based on each ordinary share having a nominal amount of 1p or 0.1p or whatever it is. If you look at the percentages of share capital that are authorised it's 1/3 and 2/3 of total, so would be hundreds of millions worth in reality. These are just standard form resolutions that companies pass each year to give their directors power to do equity raises. It doesn't mean a specific raise is planned. I think the same ordinary resolutions were passed last year too.

CD, I've never said BHP and co are whiter than white. I fully expect them to engage in shenanigans, we have already seen that last year when their first act out of lock up was to team up with NCM and CGP and oust the CEO. The latest behind the scenes lobbying seems to be exactly what Twigger said it was, attempts to destabilise the company and exert control over it without paying a premium.

What I said was that BHP and BlackRock are not likely engaged in some sort of petty market manipulation scheme to suppress the share price. I don't think BHP particularly cares whether they pay 30p or 40p or 50p. The portfolio is vast and Alpala alone is 55 year expected life of mine. I just think they don't want to get into having to pay several multiples of those numbers if they can avoid it. And I also strongly reject the idea that BlackRock are somehow trying to suppress the share price for BHPs benefit. It's totally contrary to their and their investors interests to do so as Solg holders. They will want multi bag returns on their Solg holdings. It won't make much of a difference to their BHP stake which is vast and basically perpetual and will have gained or lost more in the last few months anyway due to market swings than any impact a Solg takeover will have.

By the way, out of yesterday's options of 70p today or £1 in a year I would happily take £1 in a year. It's not as if I know a better way of making a 43% return on my 70p in a year right now, if I did I'd already be buying it hand over fist!

As I said the other day, any board directors appointed now of sufficient calibre and experience are bound to have worked for one of the majors, so not that surprising he is ex-BHP. I think my concern would be greater if all the NEDs were ex-major because they are less invested in the long term future of the company than the executive employees.

I'm not convinced just because he's ex-BHP means a BHP takeover will be a shoo-in. He left his previous role in April. I know he will have a decent change of control bonus built into his contract, but will he really want his CV to show a series of bit part roles and periods out of a job over 2 years? He might actually want to make the next and possibly final step in his career which is being the CEO of a miner! And even if BHP took over and asked him to stay on to run BHP-Ecuador, would he really fancy finding himself back where he started at BHP after having left for pastures new a few years ago, I doubt it.

Thanks for this link, interesting comments from Twigger.

There are often comments on here and other groups complaining about Solg growing vegetables, building community centres and employing hundreds of people on the ground... Listen to what Twigger said here, nowadays you have to do the ESG piece, you have to do it properly and not just pay lip service, because if you don't the funds and the proxy advisors who tell them what to think will not invest in you or if they are already invested they won't vote for your resolutions at the AGM and you won't have the power to fundraise. PIs may not like it but it is essential now to do this stuff or you will be toast with funds and institutions.

Nothing. The big four accountancy firms pretty much have an oligopoly on the large cap audit space. Virtually every large company you can think of is likely to have one of them as their auditors.

In terms of the the level of client service they provide and their fees, this is clearly not a good situation. However the idea that professional firms would share confidential client information with other clients is not plausible.

Let's say a couple of directors lose their seats. Let's also say BHP keep quiet on replacements. What does Solg apparently need from any new directors it appoints? Block caving expertise and experience building and running a large mine. And where will any new directors have gained such experience? Probably not at a junior explorer with ambitions to become a producer.

The view of the major shareholders is that everything should be funded by equity going forwards (i.e. mainly by them). Once we have a board full of directors who have all worked for BHP, NCM, Rio, Anglo etc, what will their appetite be for equity funding vs alternative funding sources?

I feel like we need a board whose focus is how can we monetise Alpala and the rest in a way that creates the most value for all Solg shareholders, rather than how can we ensure Alpala and the rest are brought to production in the quickest and lowest risk way possible (by a major).

Hi Red - I believe you don't have to file all holdings in the 13F, only those that are on the official list of 13F securities. I think it's US stocks and foreign stocks with a proper US exchange listing. Solg isn't on the list, so I assume Berry Street don't need to report it.

https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/13flists.htm

Mathers. What you are referring to is what hedge funds and high frequency trading shops do. It is not Blackrock's business model.

Blackrock are asset managers. They primarily hold assets in the funds that they manage, either their own funds targeted at investors or on behalf of institutions such as pension funds whose money they manage. They make their money from the management fee, which is usually a per annum percentage charged on the assets under management in the relevant fund. Most of the funds in which they will own shares like Solg will be long only funds with a medium to long term investment horizon, with the intention of buying and holding each investment for 3 to 5 years minimum.

These funds are not engaged in trading, especially HFT, in order to pick up a few pennies here and there. Blackrock is making money every day in the sense they are charging a management fee. Their aim is to invest the fund's money (i.e. the fund investors' money, real people like us) in assets that increase in value over time. The better they are at doing this, the better the fund performance, the more assets it attracts and the larger the AUM becomes. The bigger the AUM, the more money Blackrock makes from its 0.5% or 1% or 1.5% p.a. management fee or whatever it happens to be.

That is the bottom line. It's in Blackrock's interests for the value of the shares it holds in its funds to go up. Period. They would be breaching their fiduciary responsibilities to the fund and its investors and they would be shooting themselves in the foot if they suppressed the prices of shares their funds hold or engaged in high risk trading strategies that are not part of the mandate for the particular fund.

They also run iShares ETFs that track various indexes. Solg is held by some of these ETFs. They buy and sell the underlying assets as necessary to track the relevant index. They don't want to underperform or outperform the index, they simply want to track it as closely as possible. Trading in and out of stocks to make small gains is not the business model.

There are hedge funds and other players out their who may be shorting Solg. There will probably be day traders and HFT outfits trading it around the margins. But I'm pretty sure Blackrock will not be doing that. You can't lump all "institutional" investors in one pot, there are many ways of earning profits and Blackrock's core business is earning management fees on AUM.

That's the game though isn't it? With junior explorers. They list, then they need to constantly keep raising more and more money to keep exploring, that dilutes the equity further and further, hoping they make that one find that turns out to make everyone rich. It's highly speculative.

Look at the long term charts of all the names that constantly get bandied about on here, UFO, HZM, ROCK, ORR, RMM, XTR etc etc... all of them massive declines down to virtually flatlining at nothing in some cases compared to their price 10+ years ago. I don't think Mather's companies have done much differently than all their peers in the exploration game, especially over the last decade or so that has been pretty harsh for commodities generally.