Member Info for SharketMare

Any long term holder selling up now is a fool. Very little downside to holding until this closes. Outside chance of a second bidder.

Fort, where are you getting 28.5% from? It's closer to 40% including Jiangxi's own holding (which counts towards the 75%). I imagine DGR's holding will eventually be put in favour, too. See Morningstar article here: https://www.morningstar.com/news/dow-jones/202512141331/solgold-board-backs-sweetened-113-billion-takeover-bid-from-jiangxi-copper

Separately, Norges are voting in favour of everything in Tuesday's AGM bar the resolution on CEO remuneration. Hardly the action of a company minded to vote against the Board's wishes, is it.

https://www.nbim.no/en/responsible-investment/voting/our-voting-records/meeting?m=2014132

Fort, you're clutching at straws, using emotive language like 'promised'. Either the Board is witholding MNPI or it isn't. I don't think it is. If you do, take it up with the Panel, but make sure you have some proof beforehand else you'll look a fool.

At the moment this takeover is going to sail through without a hitch. A bid from the blue would be great, but in absence of one, we should all be voting in favour of what is on the table. Even that bogan Aussie gets what happens if we don't. As I just said to addicknt elsewhere, what retail really needs is an institution (anyone remember Berry St Capital?) to come out and say the offer undervalues the company. Then you can start to play the media and drum up some more meaningful noise against the proposal.

As things stand we have a load of disgruntled investors howling at the moon (i.e. posting on here) and nothing is going to change.

There are reasonable, possible explanations to all four of those points.

1. The CIPA is awarded by the Ecuadorian government. If they haven't done so, we have nothing to announce.

2. The development of a new, updated PFS was put on hold while the (very lean) company negotiated a buyout. Or the increased capex vs higher metal prices meant it was moot. Either way, I doubt it's finished and therefore not ready to be published.

3. The suggested levy on all tenements has made this impossible / unpalatable before this is resolved. A spinout of prospective land packages that come with a tax burden is hardly the most attractive proposition. Also put on ice to save legal fees.

4. Perhaps it was deemed to be non-sensitive? Either way it's redundant at this point.

If they were able to secure the Newmont, BHP and Maxit shares, they are sat just shy of 40% and then perhaps the board were worried they'd be able to stealthily acquire the remaining ~11-12% they'd need for full control? At which point it's curtains for rest of us.

Maybe there is something else we're not privy to as you suggest. It might be that Noboa was fed up at the slow pace of progress and started to drag his heels over permitting/the CIPA.

Addicknt, I think the main 'unspoken' risk of continuing as we were was Jiangxi going hostile and gaining control of the company, which would have ended terribly for all of us (including Mather and his large holding). The company knew this was a risk and I believe in conversations either you or Pbow had with our chairman and/or Dan, they made it clear that avoiding a lowball from JCC was a priority. The team will have known that there was a decent risk of JCC acquiring Newmont's shares - they've shown no interest here for years and post-merger their stake here was very clearly 'non-core' (despite the nonsense peddled by some on here when they didn't divest it at the same time they did Havieron. Once it became apparent that they'd spoken to BHP and they were also willing sellers, the game was well and truly up for us and our advisers would have said as much.

BHP signalling they are willing sellers is a blow for three reasons. 1) It opened the door to JCC going hostile if the BoD didn't play ball 2) It demonstrated they clearly had no intention of bidding 3) It would have been read by any other potential bidders that the asset isn't all it's made out to be. BHP's CEO doing media rounds talking about the importance of securing copper supply and then in the same breath passing up the opportunity to bid on an asset its been involved with for a decade has done us no favours whatsoever. The rest of the market will be thinking - well if they don't want it, what's wrong with it?

It takes some balls to be on record as wrong about the strategic review, wrong about no one wanting to buy us, wrong about production being the most likely outcome and still claim to be the "most skilled investor" on this forum.

You haven't had the faintest idea here for years. Holding your hands up and admitting your analysis of the situation was totally wrong would be the noble thing to do but your ego won't let you.

Rodney, let it go mate. We are getting 28p for our shares. No amount of Nash Equilibrium will change that.

Merry Christmas one and all.

Because BHP, Newmont and Maxit told JCC they would support a takeover at 28p. This would have made a hostile bid, requiring a simple majority to succeed, much easier.

The BoD has decided to play nice and will now be out there desperately trying to find another bidder.

If a bid is tabled it will probably be a cash offer. So your shares will be effectively sold for you in exchange for cash.

The DGR Board will do what Mather tells them to. The shareholders (ex Mather) are a different story, but it's all moot at this point.

It's now*

The Nash Equilibrium. Jesus wept.

SOLG will not be releasing anything whatsoever between now and this transaction closing. The Board have made it clear that they want to sell the business for 28p. It's not up to other market participants to submit a better offer, which feels highly unlikely.

A very fair assessment, Bozi. I've learned a lot through investing in SOLG and have thoroughly enjoyed the contributions from plenty of people on this forum, your good self included.

It's a disappointing end to the story here and it'll be fascinating to see how the transaction is analysed by media and analysts. I imagine that many retail investors underestimate the risks involved with building and mining Cascabel - political, environmental, technical. These are the reason for the asset(s) being snapped up at a massive discount to NAV. There simply aren't many companies out there with the appetite to take on a project that requires substantial investment in jurisdiction that is still finding its feet in the mining sector.

Perhaps there is an element of this being a 'distressed' sale too if Franco are privately suggesting they are not happy with pace of progress or didn't believe SOLG could actually deliver a mine. Though were that the case I imagine the market would have gotten wind of that and we'd have gone for half the price.

Quady, you constantly said that production was the most likely outcome. Your reading of the situation was totally wrong. The BoD were always working towards a sale.

Q - let me know where I should send the humble pie you'll be eating for the next few weeks.

Given that BHP have made it crystal clear they want to secure more valuable copper assets, it will be bloody tough for an already embattled Mike Henry to explain to shareholders why he decided to pass up on one of the world's largest copper deposits not in the hands of a major miner. Particularly one they already own 10% of. His legacy is shaping up rather poorly as it is - letting this go for peanuts would render it even worse.

Totally agree, Jerry. We all seem to have forgotten in the company came perilously close to running out of money altogether before the Franco deal was announced in summer 2024. They had to bung us a £10m bridging loan for god's sake.

I can't handle three more years of Ecuadorian politics, the relocation of a village, the eco loons etc. in the hope of a better return. 60/70p would do nicely.

I find the short baffling given recent price action, but remain sceptical that 'the Chinese' are behind it. The Hong Kong based fund was started by 3 ex Macqurie guys - two from Hong Kong and an Aussie (Andrew Alexander). They also took a short out on GGP which from memory didn't do them much good, and there was no Chinese entity involved there at all.

The simplest explanation is that their model has resulted in them taking two very poor positions, though why they haven't closed this one out to cut losses, I have no idea.

Hi Quady, the December review has already taken place and SOLG is not going to be added to the index. The next quarterly review is in March '26 and we have a fairly good shot at inclusion then. Though with any luck, it might not matter by that point!

https://www.lseg.com/en/media-centre/press-releases/ftse-russell/2025/ftse-uk-index-series-review-december-2025?utm_source=chatgpt.com