Listen to our latest Investing Matters Podcast episode 'Uncovering opportunities with investment trusts' with The AIC's Richard Stone here.
BBG I know you keep persisting with this nonsense that the government of Ecuador is going to fund the mine.
Again how would a government justify doing massive cuts to its budget (read as public services) to satisfy the IMF to achieve a bailout, whilst spending circa 15% of its annual revenue, to allow a private company to build a mine.
The social outcry would lead to the government been thrown out in days if not weeks.
Just further to my previous post keep in mind that the total revenue of Ecuador in 2023 was 23.6 billion USD.
On what planet can it be they would commit to spending 3.2 billion to help a private company build a mine? At the same time committing to the IMF to cut state spending to get a bail out, and fighting a war on drug cartels.
It is not the Ecuadorian government funding. The concept it is, is nonsense. They are currently in discussions trying to get a bail out from the IMF they dont have the money to fund a mine. There bonds which mature in 2030 are trading at 64 cents to the dollar.
The announcement in the Ecuadorian press (example https://www.primicias.ec/noticias/economia/noboa-mineria-canada-feria-catastro-inversion/) stated
"Los acuerdos suman un valor de más de USD 4.800 millones y no implican una erogación de recursos por parte del Estado ecuatoriano."
That translates into English as "The agreements add up to a value of more than USD 4,800 million and do not imply an expenditure of resources by the Ecuadorian State."
Here is the official announcement by the ministry of Production.
https://www.produccion.gob.ec/ecuador-proyecta-la-concrecion-de-mas-de-usd-4-800-millones-en-nuevas-inversiones-mineras-sostenibles/
If Ecuador was going to fund the mine they would nationalise it.
Yes Redknight the mining.com article got it the wrong way round. I mean who on earth could think that threEcuadorian government would fund a mine...... whilst stating that its not costing the Ecuadorian government any money. Oops you did.
Further I don't see how Solgold could sign this agreement on the basis of definitive proof of funding without first getting approval from shareholders. Its not definitive proof without approval from shareholders and I don't see how they can get that level of funding without shareholder approval (I may be missing something there).
Again I think very positive news but let's not get carried away.
I think people are missing general politics here. I've been reading lots of Ecuadorian newspapers today (basically all the national ones). They all mention the signing of deals, very few mention Solgold or Cascabel. It's a headline. I can't see any rational argument that this announcement proves funding is secured.
That aside it gives time. My big concern was that we would default on the IPA that is in play and lose Cascabel. That's been kicked into the long grass now.
Based on the Spanish I read it as referring to the fact that its not actually Solgold that owns Cascabel. Solgold owns 100% of ENSA which in turn owns Cascabel. As such it is the leader. Im not sure if the other examples are the same.
Further please find a link to the UK foreign office travel advice.
https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/ecuador
This a copy and paste directly from it.
State of Emergency declared
In January, the President declared a 60-day state of emergency (SOE) across Ecuador following an increase in criminal activity and security incidents.
The initial daily curfew has been now replaced by a traffic light system. Different districts (‘cantones’) have different restrictions.
High risk cantons (red): from midnight to 5am
Medium risk cantons (yellow): from 2am to 5am
Low risk cantons (green): no restrictions
Do you know better than the UK foreign office too?
Needalife I am loath to post on this board as i find people like you somewhat annoying.
Notwithstanding here is a National Ecuadorian Newspaper concerning the torque de queda which is English means curfew.
https://www.eluniverso.com/noticias/ecuador/conozca-el-horario-del-toque-de-queda-en-ecuador-para-este-lunes-5-de-febrero-del-2024-nota/
I appreciate you may not be able to read Spanish so I will translate sections for you.
"The movement restriction hours are based on different risk levels: high, medium and low."
"For three and six hours during the morning each day of the week, including Saturday and Sunday, it is prohibited to circulate in 61 cantons of Ecuador, divided by its level of risk."
"A total of 38 cantons are considered to have a high risk and traffic restrictions will continue from 00:00 until 05:00" It then lists them - I cant be bothered.
"The traffic restriction for three hours during the morning, from 02:00 to 05:00, will extend to a total of 23 cantons" it goes on to list them - I cant be bothered.
It then lists the ones with low risk where "In the cantons categorized with a lower risk if the restriction of freedom of movement is totally eliminated, it is decided that there is no need to do so." - it doesnt say how many there are but its a lot more than have and i cant be bothered counting them.
So unless you are saying that a national newspaper in Ecuador is telling lies you are wrong
Needalife well I think it looks like a pretty credible statement to be fair.
https://twitter.com/ItsWarrenIrwin/status/1740240340463001701
If you want a response from the board you have to write to them the old fashioned way as per the AGM circular.
"Shareholder Communication with the Board of Directors
Shareholders who are interested in communicating directly with members of the Board of Directors of the Company
(the “Board”), or the Board as a group, may do so by writing directly to the individual Board member or to the Board
generally at GPO Box 5261 (Level 27, 111 Eagle Street, Brisbane, Queensland) 4001, Australia. Shareholders may
not use any electronic address provided in the Notice, this Circular or any related document (including the form of
proxy) to communicate with the Company for any purposes other than those expressly stated. The Company Secretary
will forward communications directly to the appropriate Board member."
In my opinion the reason they have issued the RNS encouraging people to vote is because of Good Governance practices which as per the AGM Circular "necessitate that companies which have received 20 per cent or more of votes cast against
the Board recommendation for a resolution, or when resolutions are withdrawn, provide a final summary in the
explanatory notes to resolutions at the next shareholder meeting. It is common to explain what actions the company
has taken to consult shareholders in order to understand the reasons behind the result and update on the views
received from shareholders. The Notice of the Meeting provides the final opportunity to update shareholders on what
actions were taken and what impact the feedback has had on the decisions of the board. "
Given the boards response to those resolutions which received 20% or more votes against it was as follows..... "The Board notes that if the shares held directly and indirectly by certain major shareholders were excluded, these
resolutions would have passed with over 80% of the votes cast in favour of the resolutions. ". They clearly need as many PI votes as possible or the statement will look even more ridiculous next time. I mean its like saying Labour would have won 80% of the votes cast in the last General Election if you exclude those who voted Conservative.
They also need PI support to pass resolution 11 & 12 given it needs 75% of the votes passed to be for it to pass. Given that the two shareholders holding 20% of the shares will clearly vote against it - its already almost an impossibility that it would pass.
Anyway I have lost all confidence in the board and will vote accordingly.
Quady you really have no idea at all. You write with such confidence yet what you are saying is fundamentally wrong. As soon as the FTA agreement is ratified it is implemented - again yes some elements are gradual such as they may gradually reduce tariffs on certain goods or services to protect domestic markets.
A FTA does not remove all tariffs because that would be stupid - especially taking into account WTO rules on most favoured nation. The FTA will set out the rules of the agreement and which tariff and other barriers to trade are to be removed.
Once the FTA is enacted then to open up any aspect is to open it all.
Do not mistake a FTA (Free Trade Agreement) with a Free Trade Area/ Customs Union which are completely different things.
FTA are not bare bones when they are signed. That is why they often take years to negotiate. This one between China and Ecuador took 10 months which is amazingly quick. It removes tariffs on 99% of current Ecuadorian exports to China. If you think that is bare bones then you are nuts. Once a FTA is signed it is very much the finished article as to open one part is to open all.
https://www.lahora.com.ec/pais/lasso-anuncia-cierre-exitoso-negociaciones-acuerdo-comercial-china/
Quady I would like to congratulate you on writing the biggest load of nonsense I have read in my 41 years on the planet. The ratification of a FTA is very much the end of a usually long process. Yes tariffs may change due to WTO rules on Most Favoured Nations or due to how they were written in the FTA (ie gradually introduced tarrif reductions) that's pretty much it.