Member Info for RodneyT

Good to hear Add. As a small shareholder, I'm not at all impressed with Maxit's past history both here and elsewhere.

Thank you again Add and interesting to note.

As you know, my view is that PS did an excellent job for Glencore in relation to the sale of Las Bambas and, based on this alone, it is good to know that he is our NE Chairman.

His remarks to you suggest that he and his colleagues may want to bring the agenda back under the direct control of the Board and away from those who have shaped recent events from the sidelines. It could also indicate concern about the direction things have taken under Maxit's influence.

This appears to be carefully worded move to reassert control and distance the company from those whose involvement could be seen as misaligned with long-term shareholder interests. If that interpretation is right, it would be a welcome development.

Good point, Stas20 – I agree.

More broadly, by not updating the NAV, the company has effectively stepped back from defending the market value of its key asset.

I recognise this may not be the Board’s preferred position, and DV’s reference to MAR may offer some explanation. Still, I hope we’ll see a timely update and something clear, direct, and focused on delivering value for shareholders.

In that context, I’d also welcome a reduced role for external advisers and intermediaries, whose influence on events at the company I have often regarded as 'patchy' yet extremely well remunerated.

Yes, Smick,

It’s important now for the SolGold Board to visibly and firmly align with its shareholders’ interests. At the same time, reducing the influence of external advisers and intermediaries would help ensure that decisions are being made for long-term value, not short-term structuring. The Guyana Goldfields situation offers a useful reminder of the risks when external interests begin to shape outcomes at the expense of wider shareholder value.

We must avoid this outcome at all costs!

Thank you for that Add. I think we will have news soon and hope this brings much needed clarity around NAV, Cascabel, and a renewed focus by the Board on full asset value realisation and price discovery. Even if Newmont previously showed interest, ExploreCo still carries the risk of becoming a vehicle for dilution, strategic drift or loss of focus unless it is structured with full transparency and firmly aligned with shareholder value. What shareholders need now is not added complexity or a growing stream of fees to external advisers and financiers, but a clear path to realising the full value of SolGold’s assets with price discovery restored and investor interests placed front and centre.

"Instead, they rely on long-term broker consensus pricing, which is he admits higher than the assumptions used in the 2024 PFS, but still below current spot prices. "

They are not, actually. Take gold, the spot is currently $3,304.

Here are the futures

Aug 25 $3417

Oct 25 $3445

Dec 25 $3472.90

Feb26 $3499.80

Apr 26 $3523.80

Jun 26 $3547.80

Aug 26 $3571.70

Oct 26$3594.20

Dec26 $3616..30

Feb 27 $3639.20

Apr 27 $3660.90

Jun 27$3681.40

Dec 27 $3747.10

Jun 28 $3812.10

Dec 28 $3877.10

Jun 29$3934.60

Dec 29 $4137.80

Jun 30 $4165.30

Dec 30 $4200.70

Jun 31 $ 4228.20

Those are from Bloomberg. H & P, the company's broker uses a $2100 per ounce long term price of gold assumption.

Thank you for sharing, Stas20.

Some investors have welcomed the idea of ExploreCo as a new growth story. But is it possible we should pause and ask a few questions before embracing it fully?

1. Does ExploreCo risk shifting focus away from Cascabel?

Most of SolGold’s value still sits in Cascabel. Could it be that focusing on earlier-stage projects like Porvenir, etc distracts us from demanding full value for the core asset? (and full value will be based on NAV)

2. Who benefits from spinning out a new vehicle?

Would a simpler, transparent sale of Cascabel serve shareholders better than creating a new structure? Are there parties such as advisers or insiders who benefit more from complexity, placements, or spinout fees?

3. Could ExploreCo open the door to strategic investors we can’t see?

If new capital comes into ExploreCo, do we know who it will come from? Could it be used to bring in partners who would not pass a public test at the parent company level?

4. Are we certain this path protects shareholder control?

If funding comes through royalties, convertibles or private placements, will existing shareholders still be in control six months from now? What happens if those structures shift influence quietly over time?

5. Is ExploreCo a strategy for growth or a way to delay price discovery?

Would an updated NAV and open takeover process offer a clearer path to fair value? Might ExploreCo, intentionally or not, be allowing time for alternative agendas to develop?

And what do BHP, Newmont, DGR, and Nick Mather think about the plans now being proposed? Together, they represent a significant shareholding block and have deep knowledge of SolGold’s assets. Yet so far, they have remained silent. Are they supportive of the direction being taken, or are they preparing their own response? Their view may soon become clear and it could shape what happens next.

I am not wrong Quady. Not only have I explained your misunderstanding of NAV in relation to projects such as this but Stas20 has too as well refer you to the reports of the Company's brokers. Can't help you Quady, sorry.

We'll see soon enough PBOW, that's one of the beauties of it. Even more if I'm right. If not, we press on.

You may well say that, PBOW, I couldn't possibly comment. (great show, that)

We are all outsiders here. If we hear nothing of relevance here by close next Monday then I will be proved wrong. I don't have a problem with that. The facts in due course are all that matters not my opinions.

Solgold has done an excellent job de-risking Cascabel over the last few years along with developing a good relationship with the Ecuadorian Government and major funders. There have been setbacks, of course. Lockdown did not help but the overall direction of travel is sound. It is often not easy to manage a business. Nick Mather represented us extremely well back in 2020/21. Yes, it may have been coincidental as he looked after his own interests but his efforts back then are still appreciated, at least by me. I expect news soon, by the end of June.

Quite right Add. I have not reason to doubt the Board or its integrity which is why I expect an excellent update before the end of June. They're doubtless working on many things right now.

I'm not here to speak on behalf of Stas20. He can share his own views. As for the company, despite current concerns, it's fair to acknowledge that the team has achieved some important milestones over the years. That should be recognised alongside any criticism.

Which is why I also said that I am sure the company will update us all soon which I believe it will.

The acquisition price paid by Lundin and BHP for Filo Corp was C$33.00 p. Haywood Capital Market’s July 2023 NAV estimate was C$37.54 per share so the eventual purchase price in July 2024 was about 88% of NAV and therefore within the typical ratio for takeovers of this type which is between 0.8 and 1.1 x NAV. The notion that non-producers don't refer to or update NAV is false. They are of course aware that NAV is the primary reference point for potential bidders.

The debate at Solgold is current NAV, MAR 17 and the possible relevance of MAR 17 (4) in context.

My expectation is similar to Add's: I expect a significant news update here by the end of June.

NAV is an aggregation of all of the company's project-level NPVs, adjusted for corporate costs, balance sheet items, taxes, and streams. NPV is used at the level of each individual project to calculate the value of its expected cash flows over its finite mine life. Mining companies often own multiple projects at different stages. NAV combines them into one total valuation which is why NAV is the primary basis on which mining deals are agreed.

Quady, that's exactly the same definition I gave before and will do so again if need be. As per your other remarks, I guess you had a bad day. Sorry about that.

That's a misreading of my position. I haven’t accused SolGold of breaching MAR. I’ve acknowledged they may be relying on MAR 17(4) to delay disclosure which is entirely lawful if the conditions are met. Suggesting that possibility is not an attack; it’s a reasonable interpretation of the current silence and what has happened in relation to the deletion of the sensitivity analysis and lack of update on current NAV.

Filo Mining has been subsumed into Lundin and BHP now and their website is defunct now. All reporting refers to the latter now within their operations so, yes, but it has to be searched for. Stas referred you to Lundin already and doubtless you have access to the BHP site.

I have a PDF but can't cut and paste it here. I will try and find a work around.

"What a strange MO. Turn up here out of nowhere proclaiming you're a shareholder and trumping the fact SolGold removed a slide from a deck like it's life and death."

Bozi, please go and read MAR 17 carefully and you will then see the relevance of NAV disclosure and why (4) could be the reason why things are as they are as of now.

Bozi

Filo is a clear example. It’s a pre-production copper-gold developer, not yet in operation and owned 50/50 by Lundin/ BHP from earlier this year. Its July 2023 presentation included after-tax NAV figures, NAV per share, and P/NAV peer comparisons. It also shows the assumptions behind the valuation.

This isn’t unusual or aggressive disclosure and is what Solgold did until recently. The vital question currently is 'what has changed, Solgold?' I refer to my previous comments about MAR 17 (4)