Member Info for Stackhigh

Evidently not, SM

Companies have AGMs every year, so there was always going to be one in 2022. The A stands for Annual

If you want help understanding how placing shares owned by the company you have shares in dilutes the value of your holdings, I'm here for you 👍

Let's not forget that you don't understand the company though, DBW.

"It won’t get to any AGM …. They can’t afford to" said in mid-2022, when others correctly pointed out that nothing much was happening and there would be Solg AGMs in 2022 and 2023.

Two years and not a lot of growth in your understanding

Speaks to the calibre of Scott though. Bob embarrassed us with his 'fast and smart' nonsense, and Scott is now making claims I'll be astonished if he can pull off. Better to act in an impressive manner than over hype a lack of talent.

That's the point jezzo. The notion of non-dilutive is almost impossible in reality, so a bold statement by Scott. Anyone who believes we will get cash without it reducing the cut that an individual holder has is living in a dream.

Good to see slug using his big man mantra even when he's not reading my posts. Wouldn't want to waste a chance for a bit of toxic masculinity!

Add, you've just completely proven my point. Most here expect a sale. If the company sells the shares, you get less as a holder than you would if they didn't sell them. That, for my money, is dilution, and has been my point all along. If you want to call it something else because you're precious about the word dilution, be my guest. End scene.

If the company sells, as a large number of posters here believe will happen, will you get more or less money if those shares are owned by the company instead of being on circulation? Start simple, then I'll teach you from there.

There has been 3bn shares in issue throughout (before and after sc's statement). No one is debating that. But the company has owned, and therefore shareholders have owned, 155m of these since the merger.

And why won't he sell these shares, add? Because he wants to keep the number in circulation down, so he owns a bigger slice of the pie.

👍

The personal insults are a good effort on your part, add, as is claiming to be correct when you're not. Solid debate skills 🤦‍♀️

Solg have always been able to sell the shares they own. But the moment they do, do you as a share holder own more, less or the same proportion of the company? If you think it's the same or more, I can't help you. When the shares were safely tucked up in the company (which is when Scott made his statement) you owned a number of shares out of 2.845bn that were owned by investors. The shares held by the company would not have been included in the distribution. (Show me an example where shares weren't just cancelled on sale), had a sale happened during this time, each share would have received one 2.845billionth of the resulting pay out. If those shares are sold, each share you own will receive one 3billionth of the proceeds. Spoiler alert: that's less

How many of those shares have traded since the merger, add? Wouldn't call holding them in company ownership 'available'. They are owned by the company, and hence the company's shareholders. If they are sold, we've sold shares that were not available for money. Dilution!

Anyway, I've no interest in changing your mind. If you believe selling these shares will see Scott make good on his promise to fundraise in a way that doesn't dilute PIs, good for you. You'll own a bit less, but you'll be happy because you haven't noticed. Go about your business.

I meanwhile, will be glad I didn't sit on a load of shares whilst the price took a nose dive. And I'll keep my powder mostly dry to jump back in when the dilution is over 👍

We're those shares available to be traded when Scott made his comment, add? I completely agree that, had he spoken when the company didn't hold any of the 3bn shares, and all 3bn were available to be traded by shareholders, then they were in issue and in circulation. But he made the non-dilutive claim whilst they were owned by solg. An asset. Ready to cancel or sell, but owned proportionally by all holders. So if solg sell them, compared to that point, any shareholder who doesn't buy them is diluted relative to their proportional ownership at the time of the statement. This is why I've maintained all along that, from the point of his statement, selling these shares would be dilutive

When a company issues more stock, the existing shareholders 'own the cash' but a smaller share of the company. Know what we call that? Dilution.

The fact these would be sold as a fund raise doesn't change the thing you're clearly not grasping, add. 155m shares weren't in circulation when Scott said there would not be dilution. Then they get sold, so we are back up to 3bn in circulation, and each PI owns less than they did when the statement was made. Are they going to use that cash to compensate holders for their reduced percentage? Nope.

You assume incorrectly, add. By in circulation I mean the number of shares owned in solg by everyone except solg. Any owned by solg don't matter to PIs because PIs own a share of solg. If solg issued 1bn shares tomorrow to itself and never sold them (this is hypothetical, to be clear), that wouldn't be dilutive, would it? Because the percentage of the company assets that a PI owns hasn't changed, even if the shares in issue has shot up. The moment those shares were sold to someone else, a PI's percentage ownership of the company's assets would decrease.

Now do you see? If solg owns the 155m shares, as an asset, each PI has their percentage share of them. If they are sold, whoever buys them increases the percentage of the company that they own and the PI who doesn't buy them has less. Now define dilutive...

Rodney, you've neatly illustrated why you and others have got this wrong. If BHP sold their shares it would not be dilutive. Their shares were in circulation, not owned by the company, at the time Scott made his statement. Solg PIs didn't own them. Solg PIs DID own the 160m cornerstone shares at the time Scott made his statement. So if they are sold, there will be more shares in circulation (not owned by solg) than there where when he said 'non-dilutive'. More shares in circulation means dilution. Are you there yet?

Very clearly explained. They weren't in circulation when SC said non-dilutive. So if they are sold, they will be back in circulation and hence holders will have a smaller slice of the pie. Very simple. That's the definition of dilution. I wouldn't worry, add- all of this is moot as SC will know he can't sell them and claim not to be diluting holders from the position they were in when he made that claim. He must have a generous benefactor lined up who will give us the cash for nothing in return 🤣 Either that or he joins the list of people who have said stupid s*** about this company. Remember fast and smart? You suckers bought that, too.

Non-dilutive my a***. Ain't nothing for free in this world, and only fools would believe there is.

You counting the shares owned by solgold as being in circulation, Rodney? That'll be your error. When SC made his statement, they weren't in circulation, they belonged to the company. One of the few benefits of the merger. But now they are talking about selling those shares so they are back in circulation, so the number of shares in circulation will increase. That's dilution 👍

Good point nmm. Diluting 2.84bn to 3bn is worse than 3.14 to 3.3.

So when Scott said funding would not be dilutive, there were 3bn solg shares, of which only 2.84 were in circulation because 160m were in fact owned by shareholders as part of the company. If those 160m shares get sold, each existing holder at the time of Scott's statement owns a smaller proportion of the company (1 three-billionth rather than 1 two-point-eight-four-billionth at the time of the statement). Hence dilutive. I rest my case

It's really not that tricky, guys. You'll get there 👍

I read those documents, add. Their intention to sell the shares doesn't change the simple fact you keep ignoring.

Shares in circulation when SC said non-dilutive= 3.15bn

Were we supposed to assume he meant non-dilutive from another, previous, unspecified time? Because compared to the situation we were in when he said non-dilutive, selling these shares would be dilutive. You can tie yourself in knots trying to deny this, or you can team up with slug and start another culture war, but you can't change the number of shares in circulation.

Again, slug using the female sex in an effort to be patronising. What a charmer 🤢

The shares in circulation at the time SC made the comment were not the 3.3bn listed, because 160m of them were out of circulation, owned by solg. It was one of the few benefits of a merger that cost solg shareholders very dearly. If they get sold back into circulation, and there are 3.3bn shares dividing the company, that will be an act of dilution.

It's not that tricky add 👍

And if you think a royalty deal, lessening the amount of the asset you own, isn't dilutive either, then I'm amazed you've got the brain power to type

Nice try, SM. No weaseling here. As you can see, I stand by my statement that there will be no non-dilutive raise, because we are not a charity. If we sell shares that increase the number in circulation, that's dilution. If you don't understand that, it's not my job to teach you.

See? Total absence of any weasel. But you lot are now bricking it about the giveaway that's coming...