Member Info for ToS1963

I was being tongue in cheek. It’s probably the most tax efficient way of paying their dividends.

Correction... it’s 2.75 billion. They must need highlighters as well.

BHP just issued a 2.5 billion dollar bond for general corporate purposes. See today’s RNS. Heck of a lot of dosh for photocopy paper and admin!?!

Only an opinion, but a different one. People and large institutions are invested here, for the long term, because it’s a well run, secure company that provides a large, reliable and growing return on that investment. If you are basing your investment strategy on a three week timeframe, you’re certainly going to lose money. Try a longer timeframe, he usual recommendation is 5 years. Have a look at the Easyjet share price from 2018. I’m pretty happy to have had a chunk of my pension fund in LGEN over that period, regularly compounding in value. Easyjet would have lost me around 60% of my money. LGEN over 50% up.

Institutional investors run funds, which are of various flavours. A great many those funds are income funds, ideal for retired or soon to retire pension pots. Those funds will typically hold a blend of fixed income investments, bonds, and secure, boring, dividend paying shares. They will almost all be long term holders of L&G. Growth funds are less likely to hold L&G in significant quantities, but are, by their nature, higher risk. Not all investors are looking for SP growth. Many are looking for regular income, with capital security. To suggest institutions will be looking to sell L&G because it isn’t a growth stock is wrong.

Best 4 year fixed rate bonds in UK just now are around 4.25-4.5%. This is currently paying 6.8%. So if you see it as a reasonably safe investment, even if the SP stagnates for the next four year, you are better off here, with the added advantage of your dividends compounding, unlike with a bond. It’s an income play, not a growth one. And one of the best around. I’ve held for nearly 20 years, and it’s one of the best investments I have.

I further accept that mention of us being toast was a trifle hyperbolic. I’d had a few beers!

DM.... your post is, as far as I understand matters, completely correct. My concerns, such as they are, surround the length of time we have been in feasibility for Cascabel, and how negotiations are progressing towards extraction given the lack of a DFS. I accept your point that up to now, this area, and our relationship with the authorities in Ecuador is indeed something we have been doing well. But the risk, as you point out, is clearly stated in each annual report, and must increase as time elapses with little progress. Mention of reducing workforce also will not help in terms of our ongoing goodwill for these negotiations.

Quady, all licenses like this have criteria which have to be met, and clauses which exclude the concessionaire from proceeding. Rarely used, because big oil and major minersknow how to deal with this stuff. But this is Solgold.

Fort... you use the phrase standard stuff a couple of times.... it’s only standard when you’re dealing with long in the tooth miners or oilers. This is Solgold, perpetually late with everything, and they’ve left this to the last minute, and obfuscated by not producing a DFS. You seem to know what you’re talking about, so surely you understand my concerns here? I hate to admit it, but if I’m advising the Ecuador government..... am I on Solgolds side?

Extract from Ecuador mining law.
If the programmes and investments are accomplished, the holder of the mining title has the exclusive right to pass to the next mining phase. For exploitation activities, an exploitation contract must be entered into by the state and the concessionaire.
We are very close to a breach of the feasibility phase, but are in the process of entering into a contract with the state for exploitation.

Fort.... just reread your post. In terms of clock ticking.... you might want to google and investigate the terms of the licenses. The clock was ticking as soon as we moved from exploration to feasibility. It was a two year clock, expendable by a further two years upon request. I personally asked Solgold about a year ago where they were with this. Our feasibility phase has lasted well in excess of the initial two years, and it is my understanding we have until Q3 this year until the extension runs out. So unless the exploitation license is signed before then, we are toast. Sorry, but those are the facts. And I’m holding a lot of equity here, not scaremongering. We need that license signed, and pronto.

Quady, I have to admire your indefatigibility, but no, if we hold the exploitation license, it’s a saleable asset, not a guarantee we ourselves will use it.

Lindy. An extraction licence is for 25 years, and is extendable. We are negotiating one, but don’t have anything signed yet.

Fort.... exploitation phase only kicks in once exploitation License is in place. It’s not yet signed. I have that from Solgold themselves via a personal email. They are currently negotiating it. Whilst I agree with you that it’s in Solgolds best interest to expedite that.... why is it in the best interest of the Ecuador government?

To explain my last couple of posts.... Ecuador mining law licenses allows for a set period of time to explore, after which you are allowed a set period of time to conduct feasibility studies, and after which you are allowed to apply for an extraction license. Without going into the legal nitty gritty, a follows b follows c, and clauses in each license guarantees your rights to the subsequent step. Therefore, all being well, and having held the exploration license, we were guaranteed the feasibility license. And, if we met the stipulated criteria for the feasibility license, we are more or less guaranteed the extraction license. But as I said, each stage has its own time constraints, and in terms of the feasibility stage, we are almost in breach of it.
That’s my concern. Not only have we yet to deliver a DFS under the terms of the feasibility license, there’s no guarantees we will succeed in gaining an extraction license. That’s the RNS I’m wait for.

The last sentence should read extraction not exploration.

Of course the government can’t just come in and take away the rights. Read the terms of the exploration license. If you are invested here, surely you’ve done that. However.... the exploration licenses, as per Ecuadorean mining law, are time limited. I’ve explained that more than once on here. Given how stupidly long it has take Solgold to get from exploration, to economic feasibility, to extraction, we are now in the sad position of running of of time. So I’m sorry to keep banging the same drum, but it seems there’s plenty of folk here not listening.... yes, you are now, as far as Solgold is concerned, correct. If the government doesn’t grant us that exploration license, this year, it’s game over. We’ve used up all our credit.

And for what it’s worth, and I’ve said in many times on here..... the Tier 1 discovery isn’t ours. All we have is the license to find it. Unless we get the license to extract it...... it’s not our asset.

They are, by their own admission, in the throes of trying to extend/exchange an exploration license to an extraction license. There are no guarantees that the Ecuadorean government will be forthcoming. That’s the biggest hurdle we face. Forget all this buy out and takeover ****. Unless we get that extraction license, we are worth nothing.