Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
Hi Quady. If you think a JV is the most likely outcome, then that has to mean that the financials of a JV result in a more favourable position for current shareholders than selling Cascabel today. Otherwise the current major shareholders who are controlling the company (Nick and connected entities, CGP) would not go for it.
DinnerMoney just provided a reasonable attempt at valuing Cascabel today around 60p. If you assume current management also think a sale for that amount is achievable, what do the financials for a JV look like?
What would the flows be once production was achieved? Considering Solg's share of the returns would likey be much less than 50% and its share of financing would need paying off, what would the return to shareholders ultimately be? A miniscule dividend starting a decade from now?
I just don't see how you can claim a JV is the most likely outcome without providing some estimate of the resulting financials that would justify it. Which I guess is addicknt's point.
Good posts SM. Even if Solg doesn't follow the Bozi Solution, I guess the point is it could. So if anyone tables a bid that just values Solg based on Cascabel, NM and the rest of the board will say this does not represent the full value for the company because we miss out on all potential future upside from the rest of the portfolio. So if anyone wants to buy Solg outright, it needs to be at a price that adequately compensates current shareholders for selling that potential upside. If it doesn't, then we can look to sell Cascabel itself but we want to keep our exposure to the rest, rinse and repeat.
I've been guilty in the past of clinging onto "why would anyone sell to a bid of 30p when the SP has been at 40p twice in the last couple of years?"
The answer I guess is liquidity. Look at what happens each time Solg gets up to 40p levels, it sells off fairly quickly right back down to 30p and below. There are never any buyers at 40p to sustain the price. In fact it's been confirmed recently that most Solg shares are in sticky insider or institutional hands and are not being traded. It's largely PIs trading who drive the price swings up and down. SP gets to 40p and the canny PIs sell up, knowing it won't hold, and just that is enough to tank the SP back down to earth.
So maybe asking why would anyone sell at 30p is the wrong question... Perhaps a better question is "why can't everyone sell at 40p?" The answer is there is no liquidity.
The larger holders who own millions of shares know that the cannot ever sell at 40p on these spikes as things stand, because the SP will plummet. And not all of the shareholders can sell into any of these rises at the same time.
So if someone were to offer 30p for all shares, instead of feeling insulted and saying "but the SP was higher than that a few months ago," we need to be thinking that at the higher price there was very little liquidity and it wasn't achievable for many shareholders if they wanted to sell. If a bid is made for 30p every single shareholder can sell.
This is not me deramping. I don't think it will be sold for 30p. I'm just saying when we are talking about bids and past share prices, we need to be careful to remember what the market price based on a few million a day actually represents to most large holders (no exit) vs what a bid represents (an exit).
2020 votes:
SOLGOLD PLC
Ticker: SOLG Security ID: G8255T104
Meeting Date: DEC 17, 2020 Meeting Type: Annual
Record Date: DEC 15, 2020
# Proposal Mgt Rec Vote Cast Sponsor
1 Accept Financial Statements and For For Management
Statutory Reports
2 Approve Remuneration Report For For Management
3 Re-elect Nicholas Mather as Director For For Management
4 Re-elect James Clare as Director For For Management
5 Elect Elodie Goodey as Director For For Management
6 Elect Kevin O'Kane as Director For For Management
7 Elect Maria Alban as Director For For Management
8 Elect Keith Marshall as Director For For Management
9 Reappoint BDO (UK) LLP as Auditors For For Management
10 Authorise Board to Fix Remuneration of For For Management
Auditors
11 Authorise Issue of Equity For For Management
12 Approve Increase in the Maximum For For Management
Aggregate Fees Payable to Directors
13 Authorise Issue of Equity without For For Management
Pre-emptive Rights
14 Authorise Issue of Equity without For For Management
Pre-emptive Rights in Connection with
an Acquisition or Other Capital
Investment
15 Authorise the Company to Call General For For Management
Meeting with Two Weeks' Notice
For anyone who likes to wonder about how Blackrock votes... If you go on the SEC's Edgar portal, you can search for the Annual Proxy Voting Reports filed by any funds that are US reporting issuers. So if you search for Blackrock + Solgold for filing N-PX, you can find the annual voting records for both Blackrock Funds and iShares Inc (which is managed by Blackrock). These are filed annually in August, so we can only see their voting record for 2021 and previous.
Interestingly in 2021 they voted FOR all resolutions apart from re-electing Brian Moller. They even supported the special resolutions to disapply pre-emption rights. In 2020, they voted FOR re-electing Nick Mather!
We will have to wait to find out how they voted at yesterday's AGM, but the idea that Blackrock are in league with BHP and NCM to vote against Solg management does not seem to be correct.
2021 Votes below, 2020 to follow in next post.
SOLGOLD PLC
Ticker: SOLG Security ID: G8255T104
Meeting Date: DEC 15, 2021 Meeting Type: Annual
Record Date: DEC 13, 2021
# Proposal Mgt Rec Vote Cast Sponsor
1 Accept Financial Statements and For For Management
Statutory Reports
2 Approve Remuneration Report For For Management
3 Elect Darryl Cuzzubbo as Director For For Management
4 Re-elect Liam Twigger as Director For For Management
5 Re-elect Jason Ward as Director For For Management
6 Re-elect Brian Moller as Director For Against Management
7 Re-elect Keith Marshall as Director For For Management
8 Appoint PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as For For Management
Auditors
9 Authorise Board to Fix Remuneration of For For Management
Auditors
10 Authorise Issue of Equity For For Management
11 Authorise Issue of Equity without For For Management
Pre-emptive Rights
12 Authorise Issue of Equity without For For Management
Pre-emptive Rights in Connection with
an Acquisition or Other Capital
Investment
13 Authorise the Company to Call General For For Management
Meeting with Two Weeks' Notice
SOLGOLD PLC
Ticker: SOLG Security ID: G8255T104
Meeting Date: JUN 30, 2022 Meeting Type: Special
Record Date: JUN 28, 2022
# Proposal Mgt Rec Vote Cast Sponsor
1 Approve Remuneration Policy For For Management
2 Approve Long Term Incentive Plan Rules For For Management
3 Approve Performance Bonus Plan For For Management
4 Amend Articles of Association For For
FTJNY see my previous post. Disapplying preemption rights can only be approved by special resolution which requires 75% shareholder approval. It's prescribed in the Companies Act and it's not possible for Solg to change that.
What annoys me about saying the SRN and PIN are available on your proxy forms is that I have no need to obtain proxy forms, because my account provider allows me to vote electronically (ironically via Broadridge!). I cast my votes online weeks ago so why would I have a proxy form now? They should have set up guest access for anyone to attend as per previous years.
Maybe I'm being naive but how do you even measure performance for incentive bonuses for the IR function? It's not like he has a pnl number or is responsible for delivering key business milestones on the exploration projects. And frankly this year the relations with investors haven't exactly been great have they. PIs are even more in the dark than usual and barely have a clue what's going on. Institutional investors were unhappy and the company failed to get a proposed equity raise done in the summer, with multiple execs resigning. Berry Street wrote another open letter criticising the company. Proxy advisers are currently advising against supporting the election of certain investors. I realise a lot of this needs to be seen within the framework of a complete 180 on strategy but that's down to the board, in what way has IR driven that other than acting as an intermediary between board and investors, which frankly is the basics of the job anyway.
Come on Quady, you're really reaching now! That article is just Osisko's regulatory filing regarding the NSR, they have just used Solg's previous company blurb.
Look at the company description in Solg's own Letter to Shareholders RNS from a few days ago, no mention of "emerging multi-asset major", that phrase has now been removed:
ABOUT SOLGOLD
SolGold is a leading resources company focussed on the discovery, definition and development of world-class copper and gold deposits and continues to strive to deliver objectives efficiently and in the interests of shareholders. SolGold is exploring the length and breadth of the highly prospective and gold-rich section of the Andean Copper Belt which is currently responsible for c40% of global mined copper production.
You can already see Norges voting on their website.
https://www.nbim.no/en/the-fund/responsible-investment/our-voting-records/meeting?m=1692874
Against renumeration report, against James Clare, against Dan Vujcic.
For everything else.
Hi Add this is my two pence on A trades. AT trades or automatic trades just mean that the orders are placed directly into the trading book on the exchange by a party who has direct access. As in if you look at the order book on L2 you will see all the buy and sell orders that have been submitted into the book and trades occur when buy and sell orders are matched by the matching engine. When you or I trade with our brokers such as HL or whoever, we are trading off book with a market maker, so our trades are flagged as O trades. Our orders aren't going directly into the order book.
Market makers, broker dealers, banks etc will all have direct access to the book. The electronic trading businesses of dealer banks will allow their clients (such as hedge funds) to use their direct market access to place their orders. Retail investors like us can also get DMA if we want through various brokers who offer the service, and if we wanted to could then trade directly in the order book. Personally I have no desire to do this, as I'm not a day trader and whether my order gets filled at 16.72 or 16.75 is not going to make much difference to me in the long run.
This is also why I think it's meaningless to worry about "buys" and "sells" when looking purely at A trades... they are trades that have occurred because a buy and a sell order have been matched by the book, so every trade is both a buy and a sell depending on which side you are on.
If the trade is flagged as ALGO then it means the buy or sell order (or both) was generated by an algorithm. In my opinion this could be anyone, from algorithmic trading funds, HFT traders, automated risk management or execution engines at broker dealers, market makers managing their books, or as quady said it could be individual investors who have access to algo trading tools via their brokers. In other words, you really don't know who was behind any given AT trade or why it was traded, and therefore in my opinion it's not worth worrying about it. A trades and ALGO trades are just part of trading and unless you're a short term day trader I wouldn't spend time overanalysing them.
Quady, it is being shorted now in Canada by a fund called XIB AM. Appears to be a merger arbitrage. I don't think it means much and once the merger is done the SP will move on. I just don't think Maxit are involved in shorting a company they just invested another $5m into.
Sorry to burst your bubbles but the idea that Maxit, which is soon to be a very significant shareholder in Solg and has just invested $5m to buy even more shares, would then be shorting Solgold via some secret arrangement with another firm is absolutely preposterous! Get it into your heads, Maxit, Irwin, Nick Mather, Blackrock, Norges, Berry Street and every other fund and long investor on the register want the same outcome as we do - the share price to go as high as it possibly can! None of them are going to be shorting the stock, suppressing it so they can load up cheaply, tanking the SP for BHP's benefit or any other ridiculous theory you want to cling to to try to explain away why YOUR investment in Solgold hasn't returned you the mega riches you were expecting yet.
A quick google search will show you that 181 Bay Street is a 49 storey tower in downtown Toronto, it's hardly proof of a grand conspiracy that two financial firms happen to have offices there. I'm sure there are many firms based in the same building.
Maxit and Sangha are driving this bus now for an exit at the highest possible price. That means get the SP up as high as possible before a bid comes in, so that we don't get some jester offering to buy us at a 25% premium to last close which equates to a miserly 21p.... which is what we'd get today for that.
Add, exactly, but they will need to be bought out so they will still profit. What I meant was it's not like Osisko gives Solg $50m and only gets paid if Solg themselves take Cascabel to production, but otherwise walk away with nothing. Therefore it should not be seen as confirmation that Solg will take Cascabel to production.