Member Info for addicknt

Thanks, TI. Interesting interview.

I understand what he's trying to achieve and how he's going about it, and so do the holders of 2bn shares.

We would all prefer it was happening faster, but it will take as long as it takes. At least we have a ceo who's trying to deliver what we want.

So you know him better than those who work with him and the institutional shareholders who backed him?

One thing's for sure - he has to raise money from somewhere. So, will he be able to get a placing away, or will he be forced to sell some of the assets?

If he fails, he'll be looking at administration/receivership, and that isn't necessarily good news for us as the the administrator will dump the holdings without much regard to the price, or who buys them.

A$1.5m costs (admin and staff) for the last quarter. Cash balance at end of the reported period A$961k.

I'd say he has his work cut-out.

TI, I found it on the GGP page. The title of the thread is Tracking Trends and the link is provided by MH01 at 09:28. It's really worth listening to.

There's also another new interview with Middelkoop on YouTube. It contains many interesting comments, particularly about takeovers of the juniors.

He states that not a single one of top 100 discoveries ever gets to independent production. His strategy is only to invest in the top 100 and he will always wait for the takeover. Let's hope we are not the exception to the rule.

For those of you who have the time/interest, over on the GGP pageTimber Trader has posted a review of mining activity produced by Deloitte.

Indeed. But given that at this stage they are merely minority investors, they have no legal position to sign anything. However, if we are actually advancing discussions with them, I'm sure they'd want to be looking over our shoulder at what's being discussed. The key issue being that the agreement must be assignable.

Good post, SM.

One question: If the Chinese have indeed agreed something with the government, surely this is of material relevance to us and would have demanded an announcement?

Spot on, HfH.

I suggest you look at my original post on this topic. To save you the bother of searching, it was dated 17th Jan at 07:48 and it addressed a point Fort had made.

It contained nothing ambiguous and was a statement of fact, as was every other of my comments on this topic. I'm afraid it's not my fault you're incapable of reading and comprehending things. It's never too late to sign up to an adult learning course.

Wrong again, nal. I said 99.9% of votes. Which is correct.

Maybe one day you'll get something right, although it doesn't look likely.

I'll remind you that you said that in my first post on this matter a week or so ago, I'd claimed 99.9% of 'posters' supported SC. I did not and given your post was directly above mine, it's quite extraordinary that you got it so wrong. You still haven't admitted your error.

Just for guidance, a 99.9% vote in favour of re-electing a director is, by any standards, an overwhelming level of support. And a two thirds turn-out is also for an AGM is also good.

It's not my interpretation of facts which is awry, it's your blind ignorance.

The overall claim is for $43bn. The Moral Damage component alone is $9.7bn. So your suggestion seems about right to me!

I wonder how much BHP will end up paying for the dam disaster? Will it all be covered by liability insurance, or will they have to dip into their own pockets?

I didn't say we did, I was merely pointing out the AGM result, which suggests a better relationship. And bear in mind, when SC took over he said he wanted to repair the relationship. Life is easier without a large shareholder breathing down your neck.

As I said in my post - they didn't vote against, which they did with Mather et al.

SM, I think SC has managed to repair some fences with BHP. In fact he must have done, otherwise they'd have voted against him. As far as Newmont is concerned, we were starting with a clean sheet, so hopefully he's managed to get them onside.

SM, to be fair we can't know whether BHP voted in favour. Holders of 1bn shares abstained and I think we can assume at least one large holder was amongst them. Mind you, of those 2bn who did vote, 99.9% were in favour, thus overwhelmingly confirming his mandate to pursue his strategy.