The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
Orthern, addicknt - agree with both those points.
I know Sangha said the last 6 years were wasted but I think a lot of it was just waiting for NCM or more likely BHP to make an offer to buy Solg out, especially once BHP's lock in period ended. I think Mather wanted to string it out until it happened. Let's face it, pretty much everyone here and most of the press thought that was what would happen, so was it so wrong of Solg to think that too.
As it turns out, that hasn't happened and BHP haven't made their move so now Sangha and co are taking matters into their own hands and will go and find someone else to buy it.
If you think BHP are the most likely buyer for Solg, then I thought it would be better if they had failed in their bid for Oz. Henry keeps going on about capital discipline, not overpaying etc etc. He's in danger of just doing the classic commodity cycle thing of overpaying during the last boom, refusing to invest now due to the previous overpayment, then missing out on cheaper opportunities and then having to overpay again at the peak of the next boom. And so on...
If BHP had missed out on Noront and then missed out on Oz Minerals as well, I think they would have been under a lot of pressure to secure the next target or they start to look like they can't close any deal. Which would hopefully have led to them snatching at Solg and possibly paying up (or overpaying) in order to ensure they were successful.
As it stands if the Oz deal does close now to some degree it vindicates Henry's stance of being selective, starting low, showing some discipline etc and takes the pressure off them to bag another asset any time soon.
Having said that, Sangha seems to be suggesting they will flog Cascabel to someone else entirely so maybe we shouldn't worry too much about BHP anyhow.
Both Osisko and FNV are NSRs. The RNS for the FNV financing describes it as royalty financing.
SM, agreed, looks like they don't see Solg continuing with Cascabel much longer.
In fact I thought it was notable how little detail there is in the Osisko RNS. Compare with the RNS announcing the FNV deal back in 2020 which went into much more detail.
What does that tell us?
Think they leave Cascabel within the Solgold wrapper and offload the rest into a new entity? They already telegraphed this as part of the strategic review:
· a spin-out of assets, other than the Cascabel Project, to all shareholders of the Combined Group;
Someone could then buy Solg and get Cascabel and we are left holding the rest in the spun out entity. If we choose to keep holding that...
Hi Quady. It seems from your posts that you think a sale of Cascabel is possible whereas a sale of the whole company isn't likely. Yesterday you said "If they want to buy ENSA, Cascabel, Alpala. I agree it just got easier as they now only have to deal with us.... If someone wants to buy Solgold, then it just got harder as the book is more diverse and they have to deal with many parties all of whom want top dollar."
Given that Solg is valued almost entirely on Cascabel why do you think a buyer would be willing to pay top dollar for Cascabel but wouldn't pay top dollar for Solg itself? Or indeed why we and all the other shareholders demand top dollar for the whole of Solg but not for Cascabel?
I know Solg has a large portfolio but realistically only Cascabel is anywhere near close to the end of the studies stage. If someone was offering an amount equivalent to 80p a share for Cascabel would shareholders accept that but not accept 80p for their Solg shares? I assume most would rather bank 80p than maybe receive part of 80p and then see the rest spent on exploration which may or may not lead to a result in many years time.
Dave, there is no such thing as a buy or a sell. Every trade is someone selling and someone buying. So in fact every day buys equal sells.
Your argument is essentially that the share price would be much higher, were it not for the fact that people keep selling shares at the current price. That's how the market works, the SP is set by the marginal buyer and seller. You could equally say the SP should be much lower, were it not for the fact that people keep buying shares at the current price.
Hi Lunch. No was not from Telegram although I am in the Telegram group too. You can choose your username and you can choose what details are given out in Telegram. So you don't have to share your number or real name if you don't want to. Are you on Telegram or Twitter?
Sangha effectively owns more like 20% of CGP by the way. On Sedar you can see details of his and Greg Chamandy's support/lock up agreements.
"Sangha, together with Maxit, beneficially owns and has control or direction over 7,184,993 Common Shares and 200,000 options to purchase Common Shares, representing approximately 19.89% of the issued and outstanding Common Shares (calculated on a partially-diluted basis)"
Agree Add. A couple of weeks ago someone on another group shared the top 20 holdings list from Bloomberg. It showed the position changes. Virtually all of the institutional holders were unchanged. The ones showing large changes were all the retail share dealing custodians like Interactive Investor, Halifax, Barclays, Hargreaves Lansdown etc. Interactive was down almost 2.5m.
What this suggested to me at the time was exactly what you just said. The drop in the SP has largely been caused by PIs panicking and selling out. Institutions are holding.
In the past any questions about funding have been batted away with something like "Ingo is working on the funding and we will update the market in due course." But now I don't want to hear that sort of deflection, I think shareholders are owed at least a bit of clarity. There is no more Ingo, no one is even thinking about the long term funding to build Cascabel any more because that appears to be out the window, and the company is rapidly burning through its remaining cash pile, with no drills turning and some major deliverables due soon. I'd like an answer about short term funding, give us some comfort that the lights will stay on.
What I don't want to hear is another Darryl non-answer. "Yeah, no, look, I'm not worried about funding." Give us some clarity then.
CD why would BlackRock want to cap the price at 16p when as you yourself keep reminding us they were buying at around 30p a couple of months ago? Do you seriously think one of the world's biggest asset managers is in the habit of deliberately buying high and selling low?
And you are completely missing the point about their financial instruments that you keep getting so excited about. They are a long equity fund manager. Their funds hold shares. In order to increase returns for those funds (and enable them to charge lower management fees) they lend out some of the shares in the market, in return for a fee.
If those shares are lent under a title transfer securities loan agreement then the fund no longer legally owns the shares. However, they have only been lent, and the fund is entitled to have them transferred back from the borrower at the end of the loan.
Therefore for the purposes of the TR1 disclosure the fund has to declare the total number of shares over which it exercises voting control, both the shares it owns outright and also the shares that it is entitled to receive back upon the termination of a stock loan.
There is nothing sinister about the fact that BR has loaned out some of their stock, it's normal business practice for their fund. They even have a page all about it on their website. The fact you see the securities lending financial instrument part on their TR1 is just so they are disclosing the total amount of shares over which they effectively have control.
Add are you thinking of Twigger's letter to shareholders where he explained why they wouldn't be putting the whole board up for re-election?
What's interesting looking back is not only that only a majority of directors had that view about directors elections, but also it seems to say only a majority of directors thought the company was undervalued. Wonder if that was deliberate?
"Factoring in the significant positive changes over the past year, I am pleased to confirm that the majority of my fellow Directors believe it is not in the interests of Shareholders for the entire Board to be put forward for re-election next month. Among the concerns expressed by my fellow Directors is that a further destabilisation of the Board will have an adverse impact on the CEO search process and also further undermine the significant value generated by the Company across SolGold's licence areas throughout the Ecuadorian sector of the Andean copper belt.
As your Chairman, I acknowledge the great support your Board has received from Shareholders both large and small over the last 12 months.
However, it has come to my attention in recent weeks that one of SolGold's significant shareholders, BHP Group Ltd., has been actively canvassing certain shareholders and members of the Board seeking to persuade the Board that each Director should stand for re-election at the upcoming AGM. For the reasons set out above, the majority of my fellow Directors believe that putting the entire Board up for re-election next month would further destabilise your Company, undermine the advanced process to secure a new CEO and otherwise is not in the interests of all Shareholders.
I strongly believe that it is in interests of all Shareholders for the Board to be comprised of directors with a cross-section of views and skills who can collaborate to ensure that the interests of all Shareholders, large and small, are represented and looked after at the Board level and not just the interests of certain large and vocal shareholders seeking undue influence at the expense of a control premium you should enjoy.
The intention of your Board is not to maintain its incumbency, but rather to ensure a re-rating of your Company is achieved without compromising corporate governance best practice. The majority of your Directors consider that the Company is undervalued and therefore vulnerable to opportunistic corporate activity, which is why stability in the Boardroom - given the significant amount of positive change over the past 12 months - is highly important and in the best interests of all Shareholders."
Monte, Nick offered them 11 Solg shares for each of their shares. Now they're being offered 15 Solg shares per CGP share. They maintain their exposure to Cascabel and now increase their exposure to everything else in the Solg portfolio, they get two seats on the board and they get Bob Sangha advising Solg in their strategic review which is likely to result in selling off Cascabel or Solg itself to the highest bidder. That's always been their preferred outcome.
Fort, wind your neck in, you don't know what you're talking about. The founder of Berry Street Capital was previously a partner at Paulson, Head of European Investments and PM of their European Opportunities Fund. This is not some tin pot boiler room outfit, it's the founders running their own (considerable I expect) money and some outside money and I expect they know full well what they are doing. Paulson specialises in events and merger arbitrage do they not? These guys are in it for exactly the same reason as you, they are expecting a takeover of Solg at a large premium to what they paid for their shares.
No wonder they were annoyed when the Board's attempt to fund raise whilst being overly cute in terms of managing the size of certain shareholdings resulted in no funds being raised, multiple execs leaving and the SP nosediving into the teens right as global markets were circling the drain.
And FYI the Fulham Road in Chelsea is not the leafy suburbs.
I thought it was you the other day who told someone to "play the post, not the man"... All I see from you this morning is attacks on Addicknt and Bozi and levelling your usual allegations about people having ulterior motives or not being invested if they dare to make valid points about the potential costs and downsides of this deal. Solg is going to have to issue hundreds of millions of shares to buy CGP, in return for no cash. More shares for the same total value than if they had done this deal when the SP was in the 20s. And the combined entity is still going to need to raise short term financing to get beyond year end.
So yes, this is likely a great long term outcome which permits the strategic review and opens up much better avenues to release shareholder value. But it isn't a free lunch. Just because people point that out doesn't mean they aren't invested.
Mather did say expect Solgold corporate action in his DGR presentation...
Interesting that they seemed to annoy their major shareholders with the proposed cashbox raise whilst at the same time working on this deal, presumably with the agreement of the major shareholders.
I think having Maxit advising Solg now is a good outcome, Sangha is invested in CGP and will be looking for a substantial return.
https://www.mitsui.com/au/en/group/1226100_9223.html
They already have JVs together.