Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. 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.
Quady, they can't "hold it up", they have an obligation to inform shareholders.
For example, a company receives a firm offer (which is fundamentally different from an indicative offer) and it is unsolicited. The board can either dismiss it out of hand as either being too low or unwelcome, or they can enter into discussions. If they elect to enter into discussions they can delay an announcement until such stage as those discussions reach their conclusion. The company's advisors will normally approach the Stock Exchange explaining the situation and will request a delay to making an announcement. The Exchange will normally agree to this but will require time limits.
If they dismiss it out of hand, in theory they should inform their shareholders. We see countless examples when companies chose to ignore this requirement and it gets leaked, at which stage they make the usual lame announcement.
As it happens I do not believe we have received a firm offer, as I cannot see why NM would withhold the fact - it would boost our share price no end.
Agreed addicknt, that's my point, offers can be received and they never see daylight, you are correct, if they go hostile, and it all comes out, then that's a problem. But the BOD, will take the decision, will this go hostile, if not, they can hold it up. I dare say NM has been talking to various interested parties. I used to be an employee representative, I was not invited to all meetings, but I have seen this happen first hand.
Quady, sorry, but you are wrong .
A firm offer is a firm offer and, if a company receives one it should announce the fact, although this can be delayed if both parties enter into negotiations.
Where I would agree with you is that it's not uncommon for the target to bend the rules. The problem then arises if the offeror decides to make that fact public.
No rcgl2, that was not my intention. You posted it, and stated I was wrong. The point is that, their are many ways, that a company does not have to make any bid public. A firm offer, can be held up, so it doesn't become a firm offer. I stopped debating the point, because I thought, what's the point. I have seen this happen over the years, so I talk from experience.
"as people posted stuff off the internet"... to be fair it was an extract from the UK Takeover Code which I happened to obtain from the Takeover Panel's website. You make it sound like I got it from Mail Online or something! ;-)
Redknight, I don't need to, if you are understanding what I said. The CGP backs my argument, that with low volume the price is not representative of its true market value, as I have said that the price doesn't behave logically on low volume.
I personally think the CGP price is too high, but if CGP had volume, it would operate in a narrower range, and that range would come about, from a larger volume, being traded everyday. I have no idea, what that price might be, but that's how markets work.
Skint, read what I said.
So Quady...how do you explain your opinion on volume when CGP went from $3.95 to $6.53 (that's 65%) in just 13 trading days on TOTAL volume of 446,000 shares ($2.23m) at a daily average of 34k shares traded (c$170,000 a day, equivalent to c£100k a day, compared to our daily average of 3.3 MILLION shares (c£900k)...?
Quady.
You deny saying we need volume to improve the SP and yet ........... 24 minutes later you type....
"We need volume, as with volume, that means people are looking at us, wherever they trade or take a long term position."
Hhhmmmmm.
Come on man it's only a laugh this shares lark.
Did they remove your sense of humor when they took away your "IMHO" button...?
IMHO
Skint
Agreed Miagi, but my post was with Solgold in mind.
We are not what I would call a small company.
Yes if the free float is low, you are correct, but as we can see, it's not low enough.
We need volume, as with volume, that means people are looking at us, wherever they trade or take a long term position.
I really don't like using comparisons, and GGP is not a good one, but once volume decreases in GGP. The share price, will float about, and will lose its liquidity.
Few traders shiffing some profits from GGP to SOLG. today, IMHO. I actually have done so on Monday so happy enough...
Quady, that is utterly incorrect - an illiquid share will move a lot on small volumes.
re Quad, its shame as he seems like a fairly decent chap really, but some of his' fact statements' are just plain false, he rarely ends it with IMO.
The best you'll get out of him is 'we'll have to agree to disagree" lols
What is it today.
Skint I did not say that, read my post.
I said that volume, gives a more accurate price, as it allows sellers and buyers, to participate.
Hence it has nothing to do with the current SP.
However to make it really really simple for you.
Lack of volume, means an illiquid market, and thus you don't get the interest.
So small movements, do not shift the price much in either direction.
So Quady thinks we need more volume to move the SP.
He kept that quiet.
You would think with 500 posts a month he might have told the rest of us.
skint
Redknight, I don't use terms like that, as this is a board of opinions.
Hi DBW, that's a hard question, as 40% of the NPV at PFS, would be the equation a lot would use.
I would argue that Solgiold is a special case, because the 40% of NPV, would be for a company, that would have trouble finding the funding to build the infrastructure, and Mine.
Hence I value Solgold higher than others.
But I will try to answer your question in a loose fashion.
So if the PFS comes in at 7 billion pounds, not dollars.
Then 100% of NPV is over 3 pounds a share, now I don't think we would get that, but 50% of that would be around 1.50, which is your question.
So I must answer you, by saying 1.50 is not low ball, but I would be disappointed.
Statements like this sound pretty 'expertise'...as I said, all you have to do is add IMHO or 'in my opinion' or AIMHO and your view is legitimised...
"I have said a market price cannot be achieved with low volumes. Every investor should know this. The price could be high or low, with low volumes, ours is currently low. We need high volumes to achieve a close spread, and ease buys and sells, this way a market price is based on what people are willing to buy at, and sell at."
Agreed addicknt...and as all the permits and licences are in the public domain, together with it being in SOLG's interests to release drilling results as soon as they are meaningful, I don't see what a prospective hostile biidder has to lose...
BTW Quady...as I've mentioned before, as GFD I floated a company on AIM and led the entire DD process from start to finish, so I have an in-depth understanding in general...
I have always said, I am not an expert, but done this a long time. Some things on here are plain wrong, but cannot be bothered to argue them.
Redknight I know you have knowledge, as you mention the leveling up of information of competitive bids.
I never mentioned that, but you are correct. I also suspect you are aware, if no competitive bids, that in the real world, this can be used as a defense.
I have many years of investing expertise, and that is, if you like my claimed knowledge. I remember the argument on here , that I said not all bids, have to made public. I know this to be untrue, and decided not to argue it any further, as people posted stuff off the internet, that said all firm offers, have to be made public. I am aware, that many barriers can be put in the way, to avoid a firm offer being made, so again didn't argue the point.
RK, good post.
The other thing to bear in mind is that both BHP and most certainly NCM, will already have information which is not publicly available. As for the scope of DD, this would not be a complicated task. We don't produce anything and have no revenue, in other words, the accounts are straightforward. A buyer is buying assets and legal tenure, not a variable income and profit stream, about which they will already have their own opinions.
Q just out of interest what would you consider to be a low ball bid ...... anything under £1.50 ?
addicknt, I know you have never said that. Hopefully you recognize that I have also said, that your idea, of how a bid could be proffered, I accept. I have been consistent.
Your point on any bidder not revealing their hand, I also accept. However that does not stop companies talking to NM, and testing the waters, and maybe even putting a bid forward. My recent post, was alluding to, yes a hostile bid, could happen, but it would be at the high end, and where I believe we differ, is I don't believe such a bid could happen, whereas you do.
Quady...you set yourself up as an expert here all the time, often without the qualification "In my opinion"...
Whereas I always signoff AIMHO as usual when I offer opinion.
The plain truth is that due diligence DOES NOT need to prevent a hostile, or even a friendly approach. It is the bidder's choice. ALL prospective bidders are about to be presented with a wealth of revised information via the PFS.
Furthermore, MANY on here have committed very substantial amounts of money to this share based on the information available in the public domain.
What is to stop ANY major from taking the same view?
I know you don't want SOLG to be taken over but that should not colour your stated opinions on what are legal and regulatory matters...
"Due diligence requirements What due diligence is necessary for buyers? Typically, a bidder uses publicly available information to undertake due diligence before it approaches the target. If the target is prepared to support the offer, the bidder may also present a list of matters on which it requires further information.
With a hostile bid, due diligence is usually limited to information in the public domain. However, the bidder may be able to obtain information from the target that has been provided to a competing bidder if the UK City Code on Takeovers and Mergers applies. This is because the target has a duty to provide equal information to rival bidders in a competitive situation."
AIMHO as usual and ATB...
Quady, you say people saying that "no one can bid without knowing BHP's position". Speaking for myself, I've never said that. What I have said and, if you understood corporate finance you would recognise, is that it makes no sense for any bidder to reveal it's hand until BHP reveal theirs. This is also true for CGP.