Member Info for ToS1963

Stockpick and Banbury agree with you both 100%

1. You’ve cut off the final two words from the annual report. It says
· As part of its review of the capital allocation policy the Board is keeping the merits of a share buyback programme under review
5. You must have a different chart than me. And Google.
8. Franklin Templeton have upped their stake from 3.41% to 5.48%. That does not constitute institutional investors buying like crazy.

As I said, I’m extremely positive here, but let’s keep it real, and honest.

Uddin... think £20 next week might be ambitious. On your list, a few questions.
1. Are they buying back shares or just reviewing it as a possible option?
5. Is it an all time low?
8. What evidence do you have the II’s are buying like crazy?

I’m invested here, at what I consider to be a fantastic price, so I am very positive but I think, respectfully, that your post might be a touch on the rampy side. No offence intended.

Stats not restarts.

Spades.... UK figures are confirmed positive cases. So a self reported LFT is not included in the restarts until followed up with a positive PCR.

Red knight
Creative “out of box” thinking on commercial drivers through a contest drawing on best consultant minds globally."

Sounds as though it was written by David Brent. Or a consultant, at £2k a day. Who sold you a watch and then charged you a fortune to tell the time.

Max19 despite my grumpy old man posts this morning, I agree with you. Eventually, this will come good, and my strategy, like yours, is to hold until that day, whenever that may be. Won’t stop me being a grumpy old g I t in the meantime though! Trading in and out isn’t my style, but I may continue to add on (or shortly before / after) any placings to avoid as much dilution as I can.

Option to 1. Sell and lick wounds 2. Hold for recovery 3. Double down. Have gone for option 3 at £8.74.

Why do posters believe a good hole at RIO will change anything here? Genuine question. More than one contribution this morning has suggested this to be the case, yet we’ve had an absolute stocker from Alpala for years. Why would RIO be differentiated? Wouldn’t it just spread our resources even more thinly? We’ve been incapable of producing one PFS, how on earth could we work on two concurrently?

It’s more of the same really.... think the board may be in for a rough ride today, but now that we have a Q2 date for PFS, they must meet the deadline. Further delay would be catastrophic. Cash will need to be raised, and yet again, I expect that to be around the 20 to 22p level. I don’t agree that a good hole at RIO or elsewhere is going to set this alight. Market has seen it all before here, and doesn’t see a cohesive way to monetise. Our mineral assets have, through our own success, become too big for us to progress ourselves, and financing ongoing operations will prove more and more damaging to the smaller investor. Explore, find, increase value, raise cash, and repeat ad nauseam. Something needs to change. We are being squeezed here, albeit very, very slowly. Really hoping for a modest change of direction from the new boy, as this has become very, very repetitive. (Awaits message board backlash).

RK Probably easier all round (and less tiresome for other posters!) to say that you think they are holding back information as part of a defence (but not material information?) and I disagree.

Woody whilst I agree with your sentiment that they shouldn’t have been telling us the PFS was on time only to about face, don’t think they re in contravention of the code. Most, if not all, the material exploration results which make up the PFS should already be known to the market. The PFS can, and will, be subject to amendments and refinements as and when further results come in. Individual drill results and assays are more definitive, and therefore subject to the rules of the code.

Sorry RK, nothing in the JORC suggests that. Needs to be a competent person. Furthermore

Reporting of selected information such as isolated assays, isolated drill holes, assays of panned concentrates or supergene enriched soils or surface samples, without placing them in perspective is unacceptable.
While it is not necessary to report all assays or drill holes, it is a requirement that sufficient information about the omitted data is provided so that a considered and balanced judgement can be made by the reader of the report. Where reports of Exploration Results do not include all drill holes or all intersections of drill holes the Competent Person must provide an explanation of why this information is not considered relevant or why it has not been provided.
As required under Clauses 4 and 5, the Competent Person must not ‘remain silent on any issue for which the presence or absence of comment could impact the public perception or value of the mineral occurrence’. For significant projects the reporting of all criteria in sections 1 and 2 of Table 1 on an ‘if not, why not basis’ is required, preferably as an appendix to the Public Report. Additional disclosure is particularly important where inadequate or uncertain data affect the reliability of, or confidence in, a statement of Exploration Results; for example, poor sample recovery, poor repeatability of assay or laboratory results, etc.

I think all the suggestions on here that we might be withholding exploration results for strategic reasons are wrong. It’s also false to suggest NM ever did so. Believe me, I’d love to think we had shed loads of juicy positive results just waiting to be unleashed on an unsuspecting market, but it’s just not the case. Solgold, as with all reputable exploration companies, abide by the rules of the markets in which they operate. If they don’t, you can guarantee BHP would be using it against them.

Would very much like confirmation.... because for reasons highlighted on here, I wish to support the board, but haven’t bothered voting (yet) as I thought it didn’t matter (potentially oops). Your position does make more sense I think. Why the campaign for votes last year otherwise? Will vote today to be safe.

By the way, here’s an extract from the JORC code, make of it what you will, but relevant in light of discussion around withholding material information.

14. A company must disclose all relevant information concerning Exploration Results, Mineral Resources or Ore Reserves that could materially influence the economic value of those Exploration Results, Mineral Resources or Ore Reserves to the company. A company must promptly report any material changes in its Mineral Resources or Ore Reserves.
15. Companies must review and publically report their Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves annually. The annual review date must be nominated by the Company in its Public Reports of Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves and the effective date of each Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve statement must be shown. The Company must discuss any material changes to previously reported Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves at the time of publishing updated Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves.

Ok addicknt, not saying you’re wrong, but most companies published results of votes show the vote count to be at or near 100%.... is that just 100% of votes cast rather than available then? Thx.

Following this mornings discussion with interest. Couple of questions....

If a shareholder doesn’t vote, my belief was that the default would be that those votes are in support of any motions I.e. default position is supporting the board unless specifically instructing otherwise. Is this correct, or (quite possibly) an invalid assumption?

Also, a few are mentioning holding back (material) news. Sorry, and I’ve said this before on here, isn’t that illegal? Don’t wish to appear naive, but I think if shareholders, and/or the market got wind of the fact that Solg were in the habit of suppressing material news, given where the SP is, there would be hell to pay. I don’t buy that.

Just chilling, ignoring SP fluctuations until Wednesday.

Ssmith my guess? Q2 expected already, so little change. Q4 another year? Price would drop back to 20-22p range. Release oPFS itself, or straight to DFS announcement might see a rise. As would news of financing, or JV.

Debate not beaten