Member Info for Stackhigh

Key difference between automatic trades, labelled A trades, and 'algo' trades is that the latter is a fictional label used by rampers to explain poor sp performance on days when they need to blame nefarious interference for their hollow predictions not coming good. There are definitely algorithms out there that trade shares, but they don't advertise this fact to the internet by labelling themselves as 'A' (!), and they don't all seek to crash the SP of a small cap explorer on behalf of some (still invisible!) buyer... Lol

Another key difference, Add- I don't claim to know if won't sell until after Dec '23. That's what I think. Anyone claiming to know the future with total certainty is either mad, a liar, or both.

I think this is the fundamental disagreement here. Either because of time spent on this board, or wishful thinking, lots of posters come at this from the angle of 'why not buy out solg?'. Switch the question to 'why buy solg?' and the answers are compelling: an increasingly de-risked asset, a future where copper is in demand and prices are higher, a decent set of regionals with potential, a reduction in on-stream production from other mines. And those things will lead to a buy out, I'm confident. But they won't necessarily lead to an imminent buy out, and solg/posters here being desperate for a sale doesn't help us get full value and it doesn't force BHP or others to bid: again, that's been my point the whole time. It might take longer than Dec '23: I chose that time frame because prolific posters here 2 years ago were saying we wouldn't make AGM '21.... Just be patient, don't be rampy, and certainly don't claim that you know a sale is imminent, because that's totally false. You can't know that. If you did, you'd sell your house, car, and kidneys to buy more stock. You don't, because you know it might not happen for ages.

Is your question who is buying or who is offloading? Or both? No RNS so nothing significant enough to cross any thresholds. Volume still pretty small when we have roughly 2bn shares in circulation, I think most would agree?

No desire to clutter the board, but quick reply to the CEO/CFO question. Don't expect people to read back so I'll say again: I do think this will be sold. I do think the company as it is now wants a sale. I think the strategic review is pushing that way. This might influence their recruitment strategy. But none of that matters to me, as I don't see anyone with enough cash to buy solg stumping up any time soon- certainly not before AGM '23, which has always been my point. And the market agrees with me, I'm afraid. If there was genuine, universal belief from experienced, big investors that this was going to be subject to a takeover battle imminently, we wouldn't be sub-20p. I know you don't want to hear that, so you lash out with crazy accusations, but that's my view. Not wishing to change anyone else's mind. Just provide balance.

Go on, Monte, don't hide behind ambiguity. What are you trying to say? Is this an accusation?

There is a lot of conspiracy here, from 'paid posters', to '1 trades', to 'algorithms' that 'walk the price down'. Couldn't it be that were a small cap explorer awaiting corporate action, with an sp that floats up and down on rumour, news and low volume? Ockham's razor and all that.

I'm always interested (genuinely, not stirring) by the significance placed on the tsx price compared to here. Is it just that it trades 'out of hours ' compared to LSE, so you use it as a bellwether? Or is it that the price changes are more dramatic (owing to market precedent, exchange rate, much smaller volume etc).

Monte. I maintain that a sale is highly likely. Just not within the next 12 months. The 'sale imminent' brigade on here have already started shifting their own timelines as they realise these things take ages, and the big boys with deep pockets don't rush. But we have proved we can get cash for the next couple of years, so people here don't need to worry. Just be patient. :)

The willful, deliberate misrepresentation of A trades is tedium itself, isn't it?

Again, for those who missed it (not Red- he knows the facts and will ramp regardless) - 'A' trades are those not made through a market maker (labelled 'O'). Whether they are labelled as buy or sell is largely irrelevant - this label is automatically ascribed based on which side of a bid/offer average they sit, and is a hangover from a system that reported trades before A trades were common. The A does not stand for 'algorithm' (lol!). And this explanation is freely available on the internet for anyone looking to read without rampy bias :)

Good movement in recent days. We remain undervalued to say that we now have enough cash to run the business for a good long time, and proof that we can raise more cash when we need to in coming years.

Red throwing shade at the validity of someone else's holdings.

That's it. That's the whole joke.

I think it will be bumpy for a while longer than that (IMO) but I think we'll all do well to hold. Good luck!

Hi FT

I don't understand your bit about telling tales?

And I think I've mentioned before (though would hope nobody really cares) that I have a modest investment of around 200k shares here, which I'm happy to sit on.

Absolutely people should vote for the current BoD if that's what they think is best for the company. No arguments there.

Hi Josepi

Didn't actually mean you: I don't believe red has been successful in convincing anyone (most investors are capable of their own research and wouldn't trust a backwater message board). But I think this role helps explain some of his repetitive posts. He's determined, if ineffectual.

Guessing this is me. Turn that argument round to the original reason I posted- bold and unsubstantiated claims about an imminent bid are potentially disruptive to any new potential investor's strategy.

And I don't know why the share price gets a mention. Yes, it alters our ability to raise finance, but what has the share price got to do with any dose of realism posted on this board? For the umpteenth time: people posting here do not change the share price!!

I've got it! There was a tv comedy/drama in the UK a few years back called 'Hustle', where a team of con artists tried to defraud people. They had a 'roper' who made bold claims about a potential investment to lure in the mark, but then they always needed a 'convincer'- another person in on the con to invest and lend it legitimacy. I think red might be trying to be the convincer? That would explain the claims of frequent investments, and the repeated highlighting of other people buying. It's transparent, and desperate, but explains a lot.

It's shameless, isn't it. The way they jump on any contrary view, and accuse those who are more cautious of being 'paid posters' makes me wonder about their motivations. It might be entirely for their own ends (eg: they are underwater and need a bounce to avoid crystalizing losses), or it may be more sinister than that. Either way, it's relentless, and demonstrably ineffective.

Is it an isotope of oxygen?

Genuine question, what's oxigen?

Thanks bubble- as inconsequential as most of us had assumed. Almost like it wasn't worth spamming the board with. Thanks! :)

Lots of posters said yesterday that there would be news today. There wasn't. More rampy speculation in the echo chamber, I guess. When will these posters learn? They won't. They'll just keep spouting about an imminent bid, in a futile attempt to... Hang on ... I don't actually know why they do it. Pleasure? Who knows?