The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
And that includes your Sicko pals who recommended your post about you wishing someone gets Covid
That’s not accurate Dartfrog
There is no evidence for your theory re BHP and NCM would not join together because they are rivals, that’s not how this works, as it would be preferable for them to stop another company becoming a major competitor ie SOLG
NCM don’t have the cash, it was making the point that a diverse book argument does not stand up, it really doesn’t!
The Chinese or Barrick for instance will not be hindered by your ‘diverse book’ argument, neither will BHP we they are already part of this ‘diverse book’
I believe that Solg have first refusal on CGP (their 15% holding in ENSA). Why would Solg allow either BHP or NCM to take out CGP?
If BHP and NCM were to join to together in a bid with CGP, then it might be game over. OK CGP is anybody's at the right price, but as BHP and NCM are arch rivals, even enemies as far as copper/gold mine wars go, joining together in a bid is unlikely. So with a diverse book, to quote my friend Q, a bid is a) unlikely and b) would not be successful.
Frog
For me the biggest flaw in his arguments is that he completely fails to acknowledge BHP and NCM already have a fair chunk of shares/ownership, for obvious reasons this puts them ahead of the game in any bidding against other majors.
Q talks as if they would use their own stakes to block their own bids, it’s completely nuts
As we’ve said MANY times if BHP and NCM bid together they would also have CGP’s share on board and won’t take many pi’s to push them over the line in being the majority holders.
Why he doesn’t or can’t understand these simple principles and figures is a mystery.
Very funny though if you take them at face value...
Looks likes our resident banned person is back again.
In short RougeNation, it's hard to say, let's say BHP vote to pass the resolution, ask yourself why they would do that.
It maybe that they want to bid, but if another bidder comes along, that bidder can be excluded, and BHP picks up extra shares, as they are not excluded in that situation.
So this is one of many reasons, I think this AGM is going to be more interesting than previous AGM's.
As Iceberg says read the resolutions and interpret yourself, what you think the direction of travel is.
I am going to sign off today, as lots to do.
Everyone enjoy the rest of your Sunday.
With apologies for prolonging a discussion, tactics/ strategy going forward are critical, if the BoD are proposing a resolution that is takeover defensive but open to some/all stakeholders would it be reasonable to assume that major stakeholders are agreeable that passing that resolution as they themselves are not contemplating a takeover? In other words is there a gentleman’s agreement in place between the material parties & this is defensive against “outsiders”.
Specific rules apply to bid situations.
It is not the general case of shareholders rights plans.
I do wish that everybody would try and understand everybody else's pov a bit more, that incs me!
I am not an expert on Canadian\ UK joint listed takeover rules and nobody here is.if it's an Australian company who bids then it would have to comply with that as well.
I do wish that people would read the resolutions for this coming AGM.
agreed allthatguff, read the link I posted at 12.31 today, those are the facts, with the correct defense in place we can issue a new script at a lower price than the current share price to everyone invested and we can exclude the bidder.
Please read it, it is so clear.
All the best.
All fine and dandy, as long we stick to facts.
Trumpian era, nobody can lose gracefully.
Look we have an AGM within the month, and the run up till then.
I believe that we will continue to production on the given evidence.
Let's see what happens at this AGM.
No doubt, we will get the usual crowd saying, ah well he had to say that, we are getting a bid, same as they have been saying for the past 7 years I have been here.
This is silly, I know why I am invested.
addicknt I have a basic knowledge of cooperate regulations, I know you are better versed.
However I can model companies and economic systems, I can evaluate systems used in Finance, I can read company reports and understand them. Apart from the last item, I doubt you can write the algos that are necessary to do that, but I don't accuse you of being a slow learner. Our skills are different.
3out of the last 4 posts filtered.... I wonder who that could be .... and to think someone suggested the infestors weren’t around this weekend.... I beg to differ
My first share was property trust, and it went bust. I lost 25 pounds. I learnt a lot from that, as nearly a weeks wages.
Excuse typos.
I started when I was 19, I was 59 recently.
addicknt is wrong, in this scenario, you can issue new shares, and exclude the bidder.
This is just one way of doing it, others exist.
Sorry addicknt, but in the interest of accuracy, it would be good if you could clarify your statement.
Q, you specically referred to a Rights Issue. May I suggest you do a little of your famous 'research' in order to help you understand what it is?
You claim to have been investing for 40 years (so, you started when you wete 18?) and yet you have no knowledge or understanding of some of the most basic terms and laws which dictate corporate life. Are you a very slow learner?
Hi Tos1963 it doesn't say that.
I will post in the relevant part.
for instance, if any one shareholder buys 20% of the company's shares, at which point every shareholder (except the one who possesses 20%) will have the right to buy a new issue of shares at a discount. If every other shareholder is able to buy more shares at a discount, such purchases would dilute the bidder's interest,
You and I both have pre emption rights. So do BHP. This was specifically outlined in the initial agreement with BHP in order to prevent them being diluted during the standstill. Now that it is over, their rights are the same as ours.
Quady.... what you, and your link, fail to take into account is that the “bidder” we are talking about here, is also a significant shareholder, with associated rights. I.e. BHP have exactly the same rights as you or I.
Try reading your link, and every time it says “shareholder” replace it with BHP.
Hi ToS1963, I am reasonably certain that the pre exemption rights ended, when the standstill agreement ended.
Are you sure they are still in place.