Member Info for ToS1963

Gregory1yz... yep, sometimes the simplest answer is the correct one. Suspect they are imminent though.

There’s been a couple of posts suggesting NM might be withholding drill results from the market until such times as it benefits him to release them. Firstly.... he can’t do that without risking jail, so it’s unlikely I would say. The laws around a companies obligations of what when and how to update the market were tightened up back in the 80’s. Secondly, he is very keen to get the SP up in short order... so unless the results were really bad, it wouldn’t be in his interests to do so right now.

My autocorrect always changes were to we’re. Drives me nuts.

Miagi, agree. We probably only need one really good drill hit, but very soon. We’re that to happen, and the SP move to reflect it, it puts a stop to the risk of a low value takeout, and assuming SP was near 40p, I for one would have no issues with a further equity raise to fund the remaining drill programme. It’s only sub value equity raises that will cripple us.

Well said FSA. I do get a laugh at the notion that the MMs can walk a price down to whatever they like to fill an order. On that basis, think I’ll put a massive order in for 2p again. Should get filled by my friendly MMs no bother.

Yep, that’s what I think too.... but they often drop the price early to sweep up as many overnight stop losses as they can, before any move up. That’s my hope!

Well, personal belief is this should start to recover a bit from these levels, but I’ve been wrong as often as I’m right. Placed a limit buy at £2.22, with a stop loss at £1.75, and a take gain at £2.99. Just a punt, loss should be limited to 20% barring any massive rapid fall, and with a 33% upside. Whatever happens, I think my punt here will play out with two weeks. So big question is.... will the order be filled? Suspect it might open too high to be placed at open. We shall see. Good luck all.

Quady... so if the offer for Cornerstone was to be accepted, and we then owned all of ENSA.... does that mean we could then (potentially) sell Alpala on its own without incurring the large tax bill talked about? That would be an ideal outcome.

DBW... I too think we will get a low ball offer, however personally I don’t see it being as low as 35-40p. My thinking behind this is that both Newcrest and BHP paid more than this some time ago.... ok, there has been some dilution since then, but the psychology of it will still be in the minds of both the institutions, and the PIs some of whom will need to be onside for it to succeed. To do otherwise is basically suggesting we have lost value over the last few years, even though the SP might reflect that, all holders know it ain’t true. For that reason, I think if an offer comes in, it’s likely to be from BHP, and my guess would be the top end of a 45-50p range.

Red knight.... if we don’t get to October, and a bid comes in.... BHP are released. Gloves are off. Agree with most of your analysis except that bit... to me, that’s the ideal scenario! (But would prefer some decent drill results so the SP starting position was nearer 40p).

Aware of that Ice, but any such transfer to a corporation the scale of BHP would surely be a rubber stamp exercise? Remember, whether it’s Solgold or BHP or any other competent company who digs, Ecuador still want the revenue. Here’s the relevant legal clause from Ecuador mining rights....

Renewal and transfer of mineral licences
What is the regime for the renewal and transfer of mineral licences?

According to article 36 of the Mining Act, a mining concession is granted for up to 25 years and may be renewed for an equal period upon a written application by the mining concessionaire to the Ministry of Energy and Non-Renewable Natural Resources. It is possible to transfer mining rights prior authorisation from the Ministry of Energy and Non-Renewable Natural Resources and is based on a technical report prepared by ARCOM. A new mining concession cannot be transferred for at least for two years from the granting date

Correction to my last post.... not 100% sure BHP are operating in Ecuador.... they have tie ins with exploration companies, but don’t think they’re mining anywhere. Was confusing them with a Newcrest. Also, for balance.... everything I read suggests BHP are not too well regarded by the environmentalists there, unlike Solgold who seemingly have a much better and closer relationship.

Ice... the Ecuadorean government will have no say whatsoever in whether or not one UK listed Aussie company takes over another UK listed Aussie company.
They will have say over whether or not they approve the construction of a mine by said company in Ecuador though. Don’t think they’ll have any qualms approving BHP though, who are already operating there. On the other hand, as has been pointed out on here, there may be an argument that Solgold have the environmental templates in place.... but buying Solgold also buys you these.

TbTT.... think NM might also have the DGR Global stake/vote, so it’s way over 5% controlled by him and the board.

TbTT on your third point, I have limited knowledge of virtual data rooms and their use during M&A’s, as I’ve been responsible for creating a couple in the past. During an acquisition, they are created by the seller, in order to allow the potential purchaser(s) to review company confidential material in order for them to complete due diligence. The content, and access, is at the sole discretion of the seller, however we’re it to be incomplete, any purchaser may obviously be deterred. It can’t be inaccurate though. Obviously detailed NDA’s are also in place.
In the situation NM refers to in the documents, he’s right... there is no way CGP would be permitted access, they are not the purchaser, and there’s no way NM would want them seeing that stuff, NDA or not. It would most likely detail the templates Solg have in place with Ecuadorean government environmental agencies, something another poster (Quady?) has already brought our attention to. Revealing that kind of information is pretty much lifting your skirt.... you only do it to the buyer(s) when you’re looking to attract a decent offer.

Hi Quady.... one share one vote. If BHP bid, and I agree / want to accept that bid, my (meagre) shares align with BHP’s for the purposes of that bid. I have no prior agreement, or consolidation, with the BHP shares. There is nothing illegal or immoral preventing BHP representatives sounding out Newcrest and CGP, and others institutions. For the same reasons Solgold have appointed Citi to defend such a move, BHP will, if they are interested in bidding later in the year, have parties working on their behalf to achieve that. Consolidation, as you put it, is only made apparent and takes place following the bid, not prior to it. Firstly, BHP are explicitly prevented from any such share consolidation prior to October, and secondly to do so would reveal their hand and push up the Solg SP which would undermine any such efforts.

Quady, have reread your posts and to be fair, you didn’t talk in absolutes so apologies.

Allthatgufff.... this is correct. Get the brokers and large institutions warmed up before the starting gun and you’re halfway there.

Sorry Quady, I do not think it does mean that. Most of the institutions listed will hold on behalf of PIs, and will have to follow their instructions were a bid to arrive. In fact, we’re BHP to be the bidder, and they gained support for such a bid from CGP and Newcrest, they’re over a third. If the bid is over 100% in excess of today’s price... say 50p.... it would stand a chance.
It’s also not accurate to talk in absolutes, and is potentially misleading to new investors. To say with certainty there will be no bid is simply inaccurate. You do not know that. Although I tend to agree that any bid under £1 would struggle, that is merely my opinion and not a fact.

Cookie, they raised funds and diluted share holdings on 4th June.