Member Info for TheItalian

Minute 47, also a worthy mention of the Lassonde curve and how the newscycle during the orphan period tends to be bad.

On the other end of the spectrum, the rest of us doesn't even know what it doesn't know, otherwise we would not be here, pathetically complaining about SOLG in an anonymized BB after having invested a fortune in its shares.

One really needs to stay humble...

Https://www.primicias.ec/noticias/economia/apagones-electricidad-demanda-aumento-sectores/

If I may, during its history, SOLGs share price has been correlated to gold, at some point I calculated up to 0.84 correl.

Right now, as Fort said, there is no correlation. For the last 12 months I calculated 0.003 correl.

I think we just need to accept that the corporate events are just creating a medium term stress on the share price. Or not accept and sell that is.

GLA.

@Padmaster, the article is slightly ambiguous even in Spanish.

If you read it literally, on the surface it sound like Solgold is saying that it discounts the option of a sale (as in Solgold does not want to sell), but I think it just wants to clarify, clumsily, that Solgold is not selling at this time because there is no buyer at this time.

Oh well, I think we might be stuck with each other and the toxic ones for a while longer then....

I don't wish to pontificate here, and I would be in no position to do so anyway, however I observe a fundamental misunderstanding about the relationship between corporate strategy and relative activities, and the share price.

The dynamics of corporate activity and share price are unusually decoupled, each driven by its own drivers, so it's impossible to pass a credible judgement on one based on the other.

Given that the IIs are all already positioned so they are not signaling a strategically bullish or bearish sentiment (bar Berry St but that was a different story), the trading volume is low, the company has officially committed to a review process that takes months and creates a vacuum of relevant news in the short term, the price is currently governed by traders and speculators.

So take the low price as volatility and opportunity, pick your level if you want to start a long position or buy more, but don't fall into the trap of thinking that the current price is representative of the SOLG value.

Having said that, personally in the current situation I don't think the price can objectively be supported from a technical point of view at any meaningful level except 3-4p and then 1p. I see nothing between 3p and the current price that can act as a support, so I am not buying or selling, but rather wait to see if we bounce or otherwise ready myself to upsize if the price gets really stupidly lower.

GLA

@Tesla1, off topic, by any chance do you or did you work in the wholesale brokerage business, the likes of TP ICAP, BGC, GFI, Tradition?

.

Forte, you are obviously a very smart chap and you do a lot of research.

So it comes as a surprise that you can display such cognitive dissonance, you would be voting to destroy the most likely chance of getting the outcome you are looking to achieve.

Unless you think that BHP or Newmont or anyone else a) would now show their hand, b) would show their hand at a price that management would recommend we accept, c) we shareholders would accept.

Since no one has been stopping anyone from bidding, the only explanation for not having sold yet is that the possible buyers are not looking at the same price level that SOLG's management want to achieve, given the size and quality of the resource and the country risk.

So effectively you would be voting to say that you are happy to sell for a much lower price. If you think it's a great idea, then why don't you gather shareholders consent and then go to Scott and suggest that he puts a FINAL SALE sign with a 20p price tag?

Not trying to antagonize you, but I really don't get you here.

My real grudges are with management at OMI and ECR, by comparison SOLG is a walk in the park!

Tesla,

I am not making up numbers. The resource is what SOLG publicly advertised and the paid prices are from publicly available sources like RFC Ambrian.

I did point out in a previous post that the resource may not be technically viable as SOLG says it is, which would be the only other reasons outside of price to inhibit bidders.

My point was that in this possible negotiation, even if there is a theoretical fair value but the bid and the ask are too distant, the negotiation does not even start. If SOLG had signaled that they might eventually look at bids in the 30-40p area (just to throw some "reasonable" numbers), I think that buyers would have shown their hand, and equally if one of those 20 engaged parties had signaled that they might be interested in a "reasonable" price, we would have a real inside bid-ask market.

What I suspect is that SOLG, from the NM days have told everyone to p**s **f until they show a bid a fair value, which would have worked in a seller market (i.e. tell me what you pay and I decide whether I sell), but since we are in a buyers market at present (i.e. tell me where you are selling and I decide whether I buy), it just does not trigger any buyer reaction.

Fair?

Just to add to that, the industry average for takeovers at the feasibility stage is around 0.085 USD per pound of Cu equivalent, which given the resource we have advertised last, returns a GBP share value of 72p.

As Scott also confirmed (during my call), the company is still of the view that from the NM days management thinks that this is the fundamental value.

That is why no bidders have declared themselves (yet), the asking price from the company is known to them and they are not willing to pay until we have the "turnkey" project that justify that 0.085 value or thereabouts.

Until then we would only be worth the exploration stage valuation, which is in the 30-40p range. I would bet my SOLG shares that if we went out stating that we are happy to sell at 30-40p the buyers would come out in troves.

This also means that the current share price has limited effect on bidding decisions, at best it would be used as a reference for a first approach.

Cintsa, I rarely mock other bb members here, but there are exceptions and I need o ask, is 71 your IQ?

Forte, you might be overdoing the critique about the deal making.

If no prospective buyers have shown a bid, especially at this price levels, it's either because the project is not worth it on a fundamental technical level, or because management is keen on extracting a fair value for it based on the fundamentals and no buyer is ready to acknowledge that. Eventually the price will be paid or the price will be reduced. Current share price has limited bearing on the value of that transaction if and when it happens.

Now you and everyone else can make up your minds about which one it is, however since the NM days management has been very keen to let us know which one they think it's the case, and in all the different permutations management has worked to put in place some of the building blocks necessary to eventually monetize (getting the tenements, getting the permits, getting the exploitation agreement, building community relationships, showing credible ESG credentials, engaging institutional investors, etc.).

Keeping in mind how the sector is out of fashion and all the risks associated to Ecuador, on many metrics we cannot give SOLG management a fail and certainly we cannot imagine that replacing this leadership will change the future direction a bit.

It does not mean that under the different CEOs errors were not made of course, but we need to take a more balanced view. IMHO that is of course.

GLA

I am glad management listens when we engage. I am sure others have pointed out to Scott that the comms strategy had been poor lately, leaving too much to interpretation. On my side, this RNS reads like during our call Scott and Chris were taking notes about what to cover in a much needed update, even if most of the content is not new.

What matters is the evolving narrative that had to be spelled out clearly and how much work SOLG is doing is aligned with the objectives we all share.

I am pleased.

Ship, thank you as usual for taking the queations to management instead of the BB. Great that Scott always stays emgaged with us and shows composure.

Roxi, what have you smoked?

The resource here is real and it's big.

Management is working to advance the main project and negotiate one or more JV for some of the other tenements.

However, since we are in a waiting mode before the new PFS and any other JV-type announcement, we are exposed to price speculation, at a time where the entire sector is crucified by investors and speculators.

Keep up!

Forte, no they don't. Scott bought from his Canadian pension funds via a broker in the open market, had no idea. He just did not think it was one of the big guys, his words.

Not that I am pleased about it, but I don't see much support until we reach 4-5p, personal opinion. After that I suppose we would see a lot of speculative buying in support.

Even though I did ask Scott about what he thought he could do to support the price, apart from his opinion that we had reached the bottom his point of reference was the new PFS with the phased approach, so I suppose there is nothing at the moment offering respite to holders.

Personally, I am not topping up unless we reach truly stupid levels, like 1-2p, where realistically it's the only levels where there isn't much downside.

This is crazy given the fundamentals, but that's where we are.