Member Info for Steve4077

The red dot is just a warrants RNS for 9.25m shares with the company receiving £18.5k

@FatherTedFeck I am surprised you are still posting on this forum considering your post stating you sold out in January after the XRF results.

I accept your specific point about the 2 mines you mentioned, both of which only started production in 2019 and are the exception that proves the rule, but it doesn't alter the general point about the massive difference in mining in Ecuador vs Australia. Anyway, given your track record of being interested solely in large amounts of ore in South America, regardless of cost or ease of extraction, I am not going to get into a pointless debate.

Instead, I have backed up my own opinion by selling SOLG and buying XTR. Where are you currently invested?

>> I hope this doesn't turn into a Solgold time line.

There are a lot of differences between this and SOLG. I was in SOLG for a while and sold out after Nick Mather 'resigned'.

SOLG is in Ecuador, which is obviously far less developed jurisdiction than Australia, in terms of infrastructure and the political situation, and has no proven mines. The official position of SOLG was that they intend to build a mine at Cascabel, rather than prove up and sell like the declared plan of XTR. On that basis, there was a PFS to develop the mine that was revised and delayed several times and requires a multi-billion dollar investment. There was a huge amount of tension between major shareholders (including BHP, Newcrest and Cornerstone resources) and the board about the future for the company. The finance situation is unclear, yet massive funding will be required. Finally, the market cap was already about 14x higher than XTR, even though that was based purely on exploration results.

In summary, while SOLG has some impressive assets, there was no obvious and relatively short-term route to monetize the discoveries and no serious multi-bag potential in an acceptable timeframe (because the market cap was already high). It may be a massive company someday and I may re-invest at some point, but there are at least a dozen companies ahead of SOLG in my list of likely near-term investment opportunities.

In contrast, XTR has a huge discovery in a great jurisdiction, close to existing infrastructure and developed mines with similar geology. The board has a well-defined and fully financed plan, with specific, short-term objectives and an obvious end-game. The CEO is keeping the market informed and is moving quickly, with no signs of any internal tension. The market cap is relatively low given the prospects and therefore represents huge potential for investor returns within 6-12 months. It is a very different situation than SOLG.

>> Well 27m shares were traded that day and it didn't do a lot. It went down a little the following Monday. So my take from that is that a very limited amount of assay information is not particularly price-sensitive.

My take would be the assays were in line or slightly below expectation and therefore didn't impact the price too much. If the CuEq had been double or half the actual amount, then you would have seen more dramatic changes. You can't take one set of assay results that didn't affect the price too much and assume that all future assays, regardless of quality, will also not affect the price.

If a company holds on to assay results while the directors buy or sell shares, then they would end up in court.

>> It may be that CB and the company Nomad both consider that the assay results for Hole 2 (which the company will certainly have by now) are not, in themselves, price sensitive.

If you think assays are not price sensitive news, then would you be interested in buying my shiny rock?

>> Has Gold had it's day.....?

Yes, it's had a good run for the last 5,000 years or so, but probably over now.

>> There is simply no way he is doing what you may be suggesting (if you are suggesting).

I was saying in that post and the previous ones that CB buying shares means he doesn't have the official assay results yet. I think you are assuming I meant the opposite :)

BTW I agree that CB will have a general idea of grades from XRF and is presumably buying on that basis. I am only pointing out they are unlikely to already have the official assay results.

>> Any CEO can't help but know more info about their co than the shareholders.

I agree, but there has to be a line and withholding key assay results while you buy shares is definitely on the wrong side of that line. I'm a director (management, not board) in a FTSE 100 company and we have regular blackout periods where I am not allowed to buy (or sell) shares in the company. For example, after the end of a quarter until we release results. While XTR is obviously under less scrutiny, the same general principle still applies.

The purchase by CB suggests they do not yet have the hole 2 and 3 assay results. Buying shares while withholding that information would be straightforward insider trading.

A 3.57m share buy just went through. Someone liked the RNS :)

>> Bird1 must have lost some value in their history with CB companies

Is it almost certainly Pops1980 who has been attacking CB for many months on forums for CB companies (XTR, BZT, GLR, etc.). I am surprised it took this long for him to be banned, given the content of his posts. I don't what his original problem was, but he has been at it for so long you won't deter him by logical argument. Easier to filter or ignore.

>> Very good Steve4077, I'm only paticularly interested in the shares i hold and have no interest looking for other examples. You seem very keen to diss my concerns, are you a Broker?

No, I'm not a broker :) I am just trying to point out that taking two examples from hundreds of placings is not exactly scientific analysis. Its like tossing a coin twice and getting heads both times, then concluding that tossing a coin always results in heads.

If you feel happier believing that the world is out to get you, then go ahead. But if you want to convince anyone else, then you need actual evidence to support your assertions.

Given the CB stalking, I assume this is a new account from Pops1980

>> My concern is that pre placing ,share prices seem to fall significantly, as youve pointed out yourself, 45% and 20% . Why do you think this is? I would also imagine that to most shareholders a 20% fall is significant.

You are presenting that as a fact based on just the 2 shares you quoted. Come back with 50 examples or 100 and I might start considering you have a point. To make your case properly, you would have to show all placings for all AIM stocks over a period, not just the small number that fit your theory.

I've just re-read the RNS and a couple of statements stood out.

"All the indications are that the Racecourse project and surrounding areas have the potential for a large porphyry conglomeration."

"...we are optimistic that our efforts should lead to a world class porphyry system which can compete globally..."

I know CB can be a little over-enthusiastic in interviews, but those statements are in an RNS which has to be signed off by the board and the Nomad. While it might take a few months to prove up and there will no doubt be a few bumps in the road, the potential rewards could be considerable vs the current share price.

@greengrass7

Almost all placings are conducted at a discount. That discount is the interest for the funding companies, which are not interested in company fundamentals. They just want to make their 10% and then use the money again.

All placings mean dilution, but how else do you suggest that an exploration company with no income should fund its exploration programs? They can't take a loan because there is no income to pay it back. If you don't like placings, then you should only invest in producers.

>> Xtr 7p a few days ago walked down to 6.2 ,placing at 5.6 , coincidence?
>> ECR 3.9 walked down to 2.5 over a few days, placing 2.2, coincidence?

Considering how many placings happen on AIM, your theory would have more weight if you had a sample size larger than 2. Why not look at all placings this year so far and see how many follow that pattern. Also, even in your sample, one drops 45% and the other only 20% so not really the same anyway.

big = bid

Surprised MMs opened the bid so low. In the last few days volume has been really small (indicating sticky hands), so will be very interesting to see how much is actually sold near placing price. Might start walking the big backup soon.