Member Info for addicknt

I wasn't casting doubt on your ownership of DGR shares, but of course, as always you misinterpret a post. You've spent years doing that, so why should it change now? Neither am I surprised you haven't bothered to read the relevant info from them. Again, why break the habit of a lifetime? By the way, as much as you you seem to think you're role in life is to police this board, it really isn't.

Rodney, I'm sure you appreciate how significant their vote may be in what could be a tight contest?

It was generally assumed that the DGR shareholders had to be given the opportunity to vote on the sale and that NM couldn't be part of the decision.

As far as I can see, this hasn't happened. Does anyone know what's happening in this respect?

p.s Nal, sorry, I forgot to ask your permission to post. Please forgive me. Btw, as a shareholder of DGR, presumably you know the answer?

Oh, forgot to mention, you're completely wrong about proxy vote monitoring.

Good luck old boy.

Nal, I've continued to read this board for two reasons 1) I'm interested to see how this pans out and 2) it's highly entertaining.

Is that OK with you?

BTW, it may surprise you to hear, but I'm closer to your stance than you may think. It's just a pity you're incapable of posting anything in a calm and rational manner.

Icwanderer, proxy votes are carefully monitored during a takeover period. Google is helpful on this topic.

In the Spectator this week, Martin Vander Weyer reports that JPM are sitting on 750 million ounces of physical silver and the City has no bullion left to offer and can't source more from the US.

Pity we're not digging the stuff up already.

Mem, I'm all in favour of a bit of cross-ramping.

Mem, yes, by you! Keep up the good work!

ID, a friend of mine is a retired General who worked on numerous defence reviews under a number of Defence Secretaries. His view of Wallace is unrepeatable. He rates Healey very highly and has said in his experience, Labour Defence Ministers have been better than the Tory variety.

DrR, indeed. Once bitten... It's just that I like to see companies plough their own furrow for as long as possible and believe this is the best way to maximize shareholder value.

The disadvantage with a jv is that they can limit the options for the junior partner. They are not necessarily the nirvana they're are sometimes billed to be.

DrR, interesting you should mention solg. We spent years anticipating a takeover, and it arrived at the least expected moment. What a damp squib it turned out to be. However, this is not solg, and we have a long way to go before we get near our true value. Therefore, I'm in complete agreement with you about not falling prey at this stage, although I'm less convinced about the benefits of a jv and really do not wish to see any trade investors taking a large chunk.

Nap, no problem.

Nap, I'll respectfully disagree with you on that one.

If you think about it, if we are in discussions and the results are strong, it's in our interests to have as much info out there as possible as it will strengthen our position.

Josepi, no. They are separate issues and the company has the obligation to release them within the normal timeframe.

This type of plain speaking and clear explanation is so often absent from other miners, who talk in highly technical terms which most retail investors do not understand. For a new investor, it's a breath of fresh air.

RT, thanks for the welcome back, but I won't be making a habit of it. I just had a quick peek to see what people's current thinking is.

RT, have a look at the definitions I mentioned.

The ability of either BHP or NEM to make an offer despite having given an irrevocable undertaking depends on the definition of that agreement. The three categories are 'soft', 'hard' and 'semi-hard'.

Both the BHP and Newmont undertakings fall into the semi-hard category and this, in theory, limits their ability to bid without running the risk of being sued for breach of contract.

Sorry, I won't butt-in again, but it's an interesting question.

Cov, thank you. I did ok from solg, but the return wasn't sufficient to cover the opportunity cost of holding for 11 years.