Member Info for Stackhigher

Stas, will you leave by say... September if there's no bid?

Now we're up to a 22x bagger?! 🤣🤡

Incredibly funny.

Meanwhile, in the real world where the real money lives, we're sitting below 7p. TINTO

Slight factual error, fort.

The reason the sp is low is because buyers aren't there at prices over 7p. Hence low volume.

Hope that clears things up 👍

Tldr

Reported for being unrelated to solg.

I'm getting the hang of this 👍 won't be long until they ban you

TINTO

I dunno, there are enough posts about NAL to make it clear he has rattled you. Try not to get too angry... One never knows what you might threaten when angry 🤔

Except both can be explained simply and more plausibly by listening to the company. The tsx delisting is to save money, because if you look after the $10ks, the millions don't get burnt as fast... And the Jiangxi investment was because we offered them the 'same again' number of shares for a fraction of their initial buy in, because we had all but run out of cash. They chip in $18m to save us from embarrassing credit lines, double their holding, and it doesn't even require board scrutiny.

It would be a different story of they had bought in at 30p. That might show genuine interest. This was so cheap they could have done it by accident (speculation alert). But what's clear is that they bought them because we offered them at knock down prices to save a catastrophe

It doesn't matter, stas for two good reasons

1) we'd only ever get what someone was willing to pay for solgold, and there's always the option with us to wait and get it cheaper. And...

2) TINTO. So relax ❤️

Anyone reading this board in the last few weeks might actually think there was news brewing. Imagine how disappointed they are going to be in November when the same people are feigning disbelief and claiming something else is just around the corner?

TINTO (There Is No Take Over)

Tahoe, Rio alto, ludin, Atlantic, kaminak, tmac, rusoro.. there are loads that value well under NAV when they have the kinds of risks we do, which is why it is disingenuous to choose examples that don't reflect solgolds position and then try to project these onto solgold.

Not that any of this actually matters- the even more relevant fact than small percentages of NAV is that THERE IS NO TAKEOVER!

So

The Las Bambas case is the exception, not the rule. It succeeded because Glencore controlled the process, enforced competitive tension, and had a mature, de-risked asset. SolGold is nowhere near that stage — it's still pre-development, single-asset, and riddled with governance baggage. Chinese SOEs only paid full NAV at Las Bambas when forced to by a seller with leverage and alternatives. SolGold lacks both. The current 7p share price may be low, but calling it “artificial” ignores market realities: uncertain permitting, huge capex, and limited credible buyers. Without a disciplined process and competing bids, there is no Las Bambas premium — only Las Bambas delusion.

Stas the benefit of your short term nonsense is that you'll be proven wrong sooner, and we can all enjoy watching you slither away and ramp a different share 👍

Actual timeline: sweet FA for months, posters here get annoyed with management, claims of voter rebellion over 'missed deadlines' at this Winter's AGM, nothing happens, then repeat next year. Called it in 2021, 22, 23, 24 and now 25. Ignore the brainless rampers here: they know nothing.

Thanks slug. Did that take you long?

Fort are you saying that shares with low trading volumes experience regular sp changes?

There is another, infinitely more simple and logical explanation to explain the current sp pattern. To understand it, though, you have to unlearn all of the nonsense fairy tales about a TO you've been fed by the brainless tools on here.

Oh, and for probably the 7th time, I currently have a very small hedge of c. £90k here. Just so you don't spread further misinformation, Jack (though the rate you spout nonsense, it's a small correction against a torrent of bs)

I think you've got it twisted, Rodney.

If you come on here and pick random numbers out of the air (which is what you've done: you've provided no evidence of 'research' owing to.... The total lack of research) and claim it is 'research' suggesting those numbers, you are a very funny fellow. I congratulated you as such when you first posted your nonsense, and I stand by it. You're HILARIOUS! Just not sure you mean to be?

Haha! So in other words, you typed 'my research suggests' but what you meant is 'a total brainless ramp suggests'? Glad to clear that up.

As I say, these clowns are hilarious. Maybe you should phone the CEO, or Chairman, and just ask them to increase the share price? That seems to be about the level others are working to 🤣

What research did you do to arrive at those prices? What was your sample size? How could the respondents possible speak for the people who will actually sell the company? Who exactly did you get concrete information from at our biggest shareholders (we're going to need names in order to believe this is anything other then more bs)?

If you can't provide the answers in your next post, you need to be pretty clear that you are NOT in fact objective, you ARE spinning things (from your a*** like a spider spins a web!) and we can all continue to think you're a lying, self-important tool like add 👍

Incorrect, adieuk. But not the first time you're wrong, and not the last time.