Member Info for TheItalian

@2Luke, I think you are mixing up various institutional investors with different modus operandi into a single narrative. There are funds that invest in many shares for example because they are included in an index, for example Blackrock and Norges, and funds like Rousseau that specialize in speculative industry-specific and often event-driven investments. Institutional investors like the mining majors step in at different times depending on their appetite for a specific resource and the relative risk profile and the position in the development cycle.

Historically we have had institutional investors of different kinds, some are still invested, some are not, some of these will invest again if for example we are re-introduced in the MSCI index, some have not showed up yet because we are not an economically viable project yet.

@cafekris, you are just missing out on the golden opportunity to use the filter button. You should try, it works wonders.

Add, I would not be so critical of SOLGs management I think it's just a reality that companies try to set a strategy but there are many external influences that make managements more reactive at times. We know that we have been exposed to the need of raising funds, which makes a junior weak in negotiating terms, and we know that the resource has drawn the attention of the majors, who would not like to be played by people like NM. I just find it reasonable to expect that the majors would play us back to keep us weak, in our place, and ready to have a conversation at the time of their liking and in their own terms. In fact I think we are till in that phase, with the de-risking being the request form the majors upon which a possible future bid might depend. Then the bid may or may not arrive.

IMHO, most actions we cannot immediately explain are the result of management being reactive to something rather than being proactive in terms of strategy.

Considering the selling narrative that has always been with us and the fact that BHP did try to get us, we should factor in the effect that third parties may have had on our decisions. I would not discount the possibility that at some points in time, BHP and/or others may have verbally promised to sit down and talk about a sale, creating chaos and diverging views in our management. In other words, I don't discount the possibility that we have been played and made weaker at times.

Alternatively I would need to conclude that such experienced people make such predictable mistakes, which seems less probable that the existence of externalities in the background affecting their actions and decisions.

Best post

@DBW, thank you for sharing. Beat post of the year.

When insults are thrown around, they tend to say more about the one who insults then the one who is insulted.

Just saying...

So it's perhaps worth keeping an eye on the KPIs described in my 06/07/2024 post, wouldn't that be fun if true?

06/07/2024

I am playing with the SOLG chart to spot any interesting patterns.

Looking at the weekly chart, which I often find to be the sweet spot for SOLG, it just hit me that between mid Feb and mid Apr we had the highest trading volumes in years, looking fairly similar to the Q3 2016 volume spike that preceded the May 2017 historic high of 46.88, almost as if insiders positioned themselves knowing that there would shortly be a re-rate (me extrapolating of course, not stating as a fact).

The technical indicator that sealed that view was the 50MA crossing the 200 MA in October 2016.

Also, ROC (40) on a weekly basis is still negative, although its slowly raising. IMHO if ROC(40) is not in positive territory for at least 2-3 weeks we are just holding our breath for nothing here.

So maybe we should keep an eye on actual momentum to see if the market is reacting to any news, rumours, or lack of, instead of the usual fantasizing about imminent bids, funding packages in tomorrow's RNS, and fantastic prices next week.

Best guess, and it's only a guess cross-referenced against the calculated periodicity of Elliott waves for SOLG's peaks, we are looking at October 2024 for the next peak.

@red, I have commented in the past about SOLG correlation to gold price or GDXJ (2/10/2023 reported below), and I would also like to re-iterate my 02/04/2024 when in unsuspecting times I forecasted a specific price range, one has to love TA sometimes!

23/10/23

Sometimes I digress about general sentiment and macro picture, to highlight how much the current SOLG share price, like many other juniors and exploration companies, is depressed for reasons outside of the specific SOLG circumstances.

You can listen to Michael Oliver's analysis on this as well, but to give you an idea of how much sentiment and other externalities like the gold price can influence the price of this share, and others for that matter, let's try and price it.

Let's first take the gold price and the GDXJ price. At times of bullish sentiment (for gold) the ratio between the two reaches 0.035, while at times of bearish sentiment it can reach down to 0.014. The historic average is 0.023. We are currently at 0.0174.

Now if gold was to reach say 2550 (Mr Oliver docet, not me!) and the ratio reached 0.03, not even the maximum, it would imply a 120.4% surge in GDXJ. SOLG is correlated with that even if it does not produce yet. On that basis SOLG should reprice to 19.99p, that is with nothing new happening in the company, just because the sentiment changes, gold goes up, equity investors reallocate into mining from other asset classes and since it's a small asset class the inflow has a material multiplying effect.

02/04/2024

Theoretically, if any technical movement is at play here, after a clear retracement we might enjoy a wave up to 12.80/14.1, depending. We shall certainly see soon enough if that is the case.

GLA

I would just like to point out that the whole disagreement about what the SR is and is not, is based on a misunderstanding.

It is true that in a unilateral sense, SOLG are going through a process with many possible alternative outcomes, HOWEVER, any one of the outcomes depends on the existence and commitment of a counterpart.

So on the topic of "we are going to production" vs "we are selling" vs anything else, everything is possible because it depends on what these parties decide to engage SOLG with.

Just be at peace with it and move on, when the news come we will know what our destiny looks like, and certainly it does not exclusively depend on our decision to build or sell or else.

GLA

And speaking of waves, as we were discussing yesterday I think, between the 100% Fib at 10.85 and the 161% Fib at 14.05 there was no resistance and it's comforting to see that we are in fact cruising to start testing the 14.00 level. I suspect it might take some time to break that level but it's not a given, and then in the positive scenario we would next be looking at 19.25 but there I see a lot of gaming up and down before getting there.

GLA

Add, information propagates like waves, and sentiment is built in waves, that's why we have time considerations to keep in mind and Elliott waves explaining the different phases of the market.

@Add, for anything I miss I know I can rely on more gifted investors on this BB and elsewhere!

Unfortunately lately my attention has been taken by more important matters, not surprised it had not registered immediately.

Than you BSR for sharing the link to the Kitco interview.

Among other positive takeaways, Scott highlighted one aspect I had not paid attention to earlier, i.e. the 750Mln agreement is only for gold (20% of production Y1 to Y10, and 16% subsequently), BUT importantly all the copper is still ours, and funnily enough there is never even a mention about the 92.2mln oz of silver which I always find weird.

This leaves the door open to many possible financing outcomes, and in that context I kind of get the ongoing nature of the SR.

The only thing that wears me down is the timeline. Nothing unreasonable about it, but after so many years holding it feels like we need to endure for a longer time.

GLA

To be honest (as my usual), you can also just plot a Fib extension and see that the 100% is around 10.80/11.00 and the next stop is 14.00.

Personally, I still see anything up to 20.00-22.00ish as driven by sentiment, a rather fickle thing.

For a fundamental move like those that the rampers and the dreamers talk about, the time is not ripe until then, so no point in talking about it now IMHO.

Https://research.hannam.partners/open/5d22495a-b5a3-41af-b582-6bb710e93e0a/Solgold_47_20240717_Funding%20and%20PFS.pdf/271ee962-7ff6-464a-98de-9b7e7c683e30

Https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/RIO/rio-tinto-appoints-new-copper-chief-executive/16571592

@Red, as I wrote, of course I hope I am just being too cautious.

However until a re-rate manifests itself we are just projecting aspirations.

@Add, I have read the RNS and I have specifically used the word "foundational" in my comment.

If everything eventually goes according to plan and aspirations, then the transformation will come later. But until we have all the permits and the final decision is made, we are above all other considerations, subject to very strict KPIs for each tranche being provided to us.

The transformation we all hoped for and did not materialize is a bid from a major, which would have been clearly associated to a valuation north of the current price and therefore a re-rate. There is no re-rate here, not yet, just foundational work.

The good long term investors here know I am as hopeful for a successful exit here, after so many years of ups and downs.

But let's not kid ourselves. While today's news are positive, they describe a lifeline, not the transformational news that prompt a re-rate. While foundational, this funding solution will for the time being just keep us alive while still in need to prove the business case.

As usual I hope to be wrong and wake up with the share price at 55p or 84p one day not to distant, and wish all genuine investors like myself that I am indeed just being too cautious in my thoughts.