Cobus Loots, CEO of Pan African Resources, on delivering sector-leading returns for shareholders. Watch the video 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.
Q, you're just like one of Johnson's famous whack-a-moles. Every argument you espouse is proven to be wrong and yet you immediately pop up with some other weird defence. Just accept the fact, you are totally and utterly wrong about what companies can do once they are defined as being in a bid situation.
This company is highly vulnerable to a bid and that is a simple statement of fact. And no matter how often you come up with your 'diverse book' stuff, it will not alter the fact of your errors.
addicknt, sorry on this occasion it's you that are wrong, I have seen this happen more than once. Not always in a good way.
The fortune oil story, is my most recent memory, I know others on here, were in that share.
Look into it. This happens.
From what you described Quady, Fortune oil was not subject to a hostile bid. So comparison fails.
Q, FFS! Read the Code!
He wont listen to you, he's like a dog with a bone.
Clearly it is A FACT that we are vulnerable to a take over/sale, everyone knows this and NM himself has said so MANY times, which he refuses to acknowledge.
Fortune oil is not a good comparison, it irrelevant here, in case you didn't know, tier 1 copper /gold assets are very much sought after.
Morning quady. Rules are different when the company is defined as being in a bid situation. You seem to be ignoring this fact.
correct allthatguff, it was made that no hostile bid could have succeeded. ( also our shares were acquired at about 2% of NPV )
Addicknt I know that you and others understand the regulations better than me, you add a lot too this forum. But I have seen this happen more than once.
Let's see how this pans out.
Morning Jerry, again like addicknt, I am sure you understand the rules better than me.
But we have excluded NCM and BHP in the last two share issues. ( that is a fact )
We will continue to exclude them, and we will defend, with many strategies.
Slowly BHP and NCM, will not be the major players.
Imagine if more stock is offered to DGR raising their stake.
No let's not see how it pans out. Let's get the basic facts right.
1. Fortune Oil incorrect example for dealing with a hostile bid is incorrect. Got taken over from within apparently. Ignore.
2. "But I have seen this happen more than once." Give a specific example where a hostile bid was made and the target then when on a dilution spree to save itself.
#FactsMatter
allthatguff, you are obviously not acquainted with the fortune oil story, I know others on here are, maybe they will chip in.
Yes facts matter.
So let's review what I have said.
It takes time to launch a hostile bid, this means that the acquirer has to talk to various parties to find out what would it take in principle to acquire their holdings.
No way, can that be kept secret, so at that point more shares are issued, and someone like Valuestone and maybe DGR and maybe Tenstar, or maybe we bring someone else on the book, to diversify further, and dilute the acquirer.
The example I gave earlier, I realise was poorly worded, and hence your question I suspect.
Only the Fortune Oil scenario is in my mind, as happened over 7 tears ago.
If I remember some of the others I will post, but these are companies I never invested in.
This can be done, I know it's not what you want to hear, but please read up on the Fortune oil story, and be pleased that we have such a diverse register.
All the best.
years not tears, don't know why autocorrect does that, second occasion now.
Fine, you have no examples for "hostile bid was made and the target then when on a dilution spree to save itself."
We thus accept this argument is wrong and goes against the takeover code.
Allthatguff, I am not sure what to make of you, sometimes what you say adds to the conversation, other times you dig in with silly assertions.
Try reading up on shareholders right's plans, as this is just one of the ways that what I have said could be done.
Remember I have seen this done, from what you are saying, you haven't.
A shareholders' rights plan triggers immediately after the potential acquirer reveals their takeover scheme. These plans give existing shareholders the opportunity to buy additional company stock at a discounted price. Shareholders are tempted by the low price to buy more stock, thereby diluting the acquirer's ownership percentage. This makes the takeover more expensive for the acquirer and could potentially thwart the takeover entirely. At the very least, it gives the company's board of directors time to weigh other offers.
So we have to accept your "memory" of something, however erroneous your argument may be.
Hilarious "my reading up"; you are highly skilled at deflecting.
When you lose the argument it suddenly "does not matter" or "we will see", or "you go read up".
Can you get an inkling how people really get hacked off by this ?? Probably not..!!
Q, yet again you are wrong. A Rights Issue has to be offered to all shareholders i.e BHP and NCM, ergo no dilution. That's the law. Full stop.
In any event, as I've already informed you, such an issue cannot take place without shareholder approval.
You are barking up the wrong tree.
So it would appear he doesn’t know what to make of anyone who disagrees with him now ? Wtaf
It seems his current idea is to dilute further and further, thereby reducing the majors percentage.
As we all know, other than him, this would then lead to a distressed take over at a low price.
He’s clearly lost the plot on here, that is another fact
Will not get to a share dilution imho ,be taken over by then ,let's see what happens this week gla
addicknt, I have seen this happen in various guises, I have just had a look at wikipedia. It says that you don't have to offer the cheap shares to all parties, and that you can exclude the bidder, will post in below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder_rights_plan#:~:text=A%20shareholder%20rights%20plan%2C%20colloquially%20known%20as%20a,corporation%20%27s%20board%20of%20directors%20against%20a%20takeover.
Whoops I logged out, and can see Earthlings posts, he really doesn't understand anything at all.
However logged back in now, and can only see green lines.
That's much better.
Earthling.... absolutely. .... and as both myself and addicknt pointed out, pre emption rights would prevent this approach from diluting BHP etc. The only people to lose out would be any small PIs who could not afford to take up their rights.
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.
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.
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.
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,