Member Info for RodneyT

Very interested in the truth RK. The pursuit of that and the interests of all small shareholders should be symbiotic. I don't doubt we have good executives at Solgold. I just want a clear statement from the company on this subject. This would be entirely inline with the spirit of MAR, TPP and FCA principles. I think such a statement will come soon.

I revert back to Stas20's analysis of the NAV. 164p to include uprate using the company's own sensitivity analysis along with current FX and Spot. I also revert to Stas20's comments on NPV and NAV. Mining assets are tranacted with primary reference to NAV.

Due to the importance of MAR and other regulations , a simple statement about current NAV based on the company’s own calculations and those of two of its brokers would timely.

Silence on this topic could assist those who may be seeking to acquire control or economic interest at an undervalued price to include strategic buyers, potential concert parties, opportunistic funds managing the stock’s volatility, and other parties.

The principal victims are ordinary shareholders who are not given full, fair market transparency on intrinsic value. This is the essence of MAR and is why I think the company will comment soon since it is doubtless aware of its duties to all shareholders and takes these duties extremely seriously. There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing. Clarification is what is needed.

Mr Wilson is likely to have a better idea of regulatory nuances and perceptions than Mr Stackhouse. The opinion of Counsel is valuable.

Clarification from the company is all that is needed....and the company will know that. Why take risk if you don't have to? There has been no suggestion of any wrongdoing.

The regulator’s biggest fear is not whether the directors of companies can technically justify non-disclosure — it's whether the market is being structurally disadvantaged because:

1.Information is being selectively withheld.

2.Insiders are better informed than outsiders.

3.The board’s real audience is private financiers, not public shareholders.

4.The company appears to be managing disclosure tactically rather than transparently.

5.The minority may ultimately be forced to sell or be diluted on an artificially depressed valuation.

The deletion of the sensitivity analysis could easily be construed as fitting squarely into this narrative:

Why remove publicly available valuation metrics unless you are uncomfortable with investors seeing how undervalued the business may be relative to ongoing private negotiations?

I am sure that the company intend no harm or malice which is why I expect clarification soon. I am totally convinced that the company would not knowingly wish for the deletion of the sensitivity analysis from the most recent presentation to be mis-construed by the market or any third party. A brief update covering current NAV by company would put this topic to rest which is why I think this will be forthcoming.

My references are to UK regulations. I expect to see a clarification from the company soon in line with Stas 20's most recent comments. This is a difficult situation for the company as well as for many here but it can easily be resolved which is why I think it will be soon.

The FCA do not appraise share prices/NAV, per se, but they are concerned when a price appears to reflect:

1.Information asymmetry (i.e. insiders have knowledge not disclosed to market)

2.Unusual insider activity (directors buying/selling; new options granted; management silence during material developments)

3.Structural manipulation (short positions, debt-equity conversions, concert parties, or private parties influencing control covertly)

4.Inadequate disclosure of asset value or pending events

In short: the price-NAV disconnect becomes a regulatory red flag when accompanied by suspicious governance or opaque disclosures.

It is in any company’s interest to provide clarity in these situations which is why expect this shortly. There is no suggestion that the company has done anything wrong and it would make sense for it to make a simple statement stating its estimate of the current NAV based on Solgold's own sensitivity analysis.

It’s an awkward situation for the company which is why I expect a clarification soon as it would not wish to fall foul of TPP 1, MAR 17 and FCA Enforcement Guidance (DEPP 6.2.3G)

By deleting the sensitivity analysis from the latest report (and the January report from the website), the company increased the information asymmetry between insiders (who know the NAV uplift) and the market (which no longer has the key input data).

The deletion does not remove the MAR 17 duty — it potentially aggravates the potential for a breach because it may evidence knowledge of materiality, it worsens public information imbalance and it can appear as selective suppression.

I don’t think the company would risk putting itself in this position which is why I expect clarification soon.

You might be able to, Pbow. That is a different matter to all companies' obligations under MAR and TPP 1.

Mr Stackhouse should have a word with Mr Wilson Solgold’s General Counsel

MAR 17 still applies here because the sensitivity tables already exist and were published. The only change is spot pricing which the market can track in real time. Management’s knowledge that these spot prices drive materially higher NAV triggers MAR 17 duties.

The obligation is to update or maintain disclosure sufficient to avoid information asymmetry not to publish a full PFS or FS prematurely.

I think we will hear from the company soon on this.

MAR doesn’t require perfect equal access to information that was once public but once management becomes aware that previously disclosed, material information has become stale or incomplete due to market movements, they are obliged to consider whether fresh disclosure is now required.

New developments made the old sensitivity analysis highly material.

When copper, gold, silver prices moved materially upwards, the previously published sensitivity analysis became highly price-sensitive again. Management doubtless knows that applying the sensitivity would reveal a much higher NAV today.

This is why I believe the company will comment on this topic soon so as to continue to act within its obligations to the market and avoid any confusion or potential for breach.

I am quite sure that the company would not want simple non-updating to be construed as a potential selective suppression.

In the UK, Takeover Code General Principle 1 states that all shareholders of the same class should be treated equally and have equivalent information in takeover situations.

In takeover situations, this can be problematic because:

1.Insiders and bidders may be negotiating or preparing offers while having superior NAV knowledge (whilst at the same time, companies have a duty under MAR 17 to avoid this situation)

2.The above ca suppress open market price discovery and artificially depress the current share price.

3. Minority shareholders are thus at risk of, selling too cheaply, being diluted unfairly or losing fair participation in takeover premiums.

In short, this is a problematic area. Information asymmetry for small shareholders should be avoided. Information asymmetry in a possible corporate transaction context means: insiders and potential acquirers may be transacting (or planning transactions) based on materially superior knowledge of true NAV, while ordinary shareholders are deprived of this same information due to lack of MAR-compliant disclosure.

Suspect that we’ll hear from Solgold soon on this matter as it’s certain that they’ll want to be onside with their obligations to the market.

UK Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) Article 17 requires companies to disclose any inside information “as soon as possible.” Inside information includes any financial data of a precise nature, not publicly available, which would likely have a significant effect on a company’s share price.

SolGold previously published NAV sensitivity tables (January 2025 presentation now deleted from Solgold’s website) demonstrating how NAV responds to commodity price changes. Since the last PFS, copper, gold, and silver prices have materially increased. Applying SolGold’s own sensitivity analysis to current spot prices results in a materially higher NAV (approx. £1.64/share) as shown by Stas20 and corroborated by me via as assessment of the latest RC and HP reports. Management will be fully aware of these NAV implications. This information is precise, price-sensitive, and could qualify as inside information under MAR.

Were it to withhold updated NAV information, a company would risk non-compliance with its MAR disclosure obligations. - The market is trading at a severe discount to true NAV. Minority shareholders could be being denied fair price discovery. - The deletion of the sensitivity tables from the current/latest (May 2025) presentation could be construed as possible suppression of market-relevant information and benefit only certain interests. Solgold will clarify soon I am sure because the company will no doubt wish to continue to act lawfully at all times.

Good evening, all.

Been out today so not much chance to catch up here or work on anything new. What I have done this evening, though, is to go through the most recent Red Cloud and H&P Solgold papers and assess these in the context of what they say about NAV along with an update of spot prices to today's level. Aside from this, I am trying to adapt the Wilkie Model to use here and get a series of 'what if' scenarios or, as Wilkie referred to them 'a funnel of doubt'. Back to the reports and my analysis, the NAV figure derived is 164p so exactly the same as Stas20's figure but derived in a different way. I have all the workings and calculations and am happy to share them here on Monday. I can't do it until then as I have to go out now and have a family day away from home tomorrow. I wish you all a good weekend.

Have a good weekend Panda. 👍🏻

For PRC SOEs, SolGold is not simply a "deal". It is a long-term strategic position in global copper/gold outside of US-Australian influence.

For BHP, it's growth optionality. For JCC, it's sovereign insurance.

PRC SOE's do not prioritise IRR in the way Western businesses do. Their priority is security of supply and they are prepared to pay full price to achieve that.

IP, just to say that I agree with your view that the NAV is ca 150p a share. I also accept that you have said this for a long time and were the first to do so.

I agree, Stas and my recent research suggests a dark horse coming to the fore shortly. An LSE listed company starting with Bravo and ending with Pappa (or was that Panda?) :-)

Take Noront as an example and the purchase by Wyloo. During the preceding period, the share was trading at about $0.23 or about 12 -15% of NAV or an 85-90% discount to NAV. Wyloo ended up buying Noront for $1.10 or about 50% of NAV. That took from Feb to Dec 2021 to complete. Based on Stas20 and Needabrain's work today, Solgold is currently at about 4% of NAV so a 95% discount. Solgold should immediately revert to highlighting its sensitivity analysis and should also refresh the resource spot prices.