Member Info for addicknt

No we're not. This has got a long way to run yet.

Last night Pbow drew my attention to the differences which exist in the various LOIs, specifically as they relate to the undertakings.

As we know, none of them are binding and it could be said they're not worth the paper they're written on. However, Maxit have definitely gone further than the other three (Mather's is almost completely meaningless). The question is, why?

I really don't understand why Maxit appear more willing to accept 28p than BHP and Newmont. In fact, I don't understand why any of them gave them in the first place (I think the explanation may be that JCC said they wouldn't progress at all unless they had some form of comfort, no matter how vague.) I'd have thought Maxit and Mather were the two most likely to want to keep the door open as far as possible.

Any thoughts?

Eloro, not as far as I'm aware.

The last MD&A included a typo. It said details of ExCo would be released by y/e '26. I pointed this out to DV who immediately responded saying it was a typo and it should have said 'y/e '25. He sounded completely confident. It begs an obvious question, doesn't it?

RBM, quite right. They are either acting for a client(s) or it's part of their market making activity. They are not creating a false market.

FTJNY, have a look at the rules regarding advisors buying shares in a client company during a takeover.

If they have inside info, which they will, they can't purchase and they can't engage in a price support operation, thus creating a false market

Think back to the Guiness affair in the '80s.

Of the saga at Bacanora Minerals. They let a Chinese firm onto the register and from that moment on it was game over. The shareholders were up in arms as the perception was of a massive undervaluation.

The situation wasn't entirely analogous as they didn't have a Franco behind them, but it shows what can happen when you let a major trade investors get a grip.

As it subsequently turned out, the timing was good as the Mexican government started playing silly buggers, but they didn't know that at the time.

Btw, I'm not saying we won't find an alternative, I'm merely pointing out how small explorers can lose the prize.

I didn't know the answer, so thanks all for your responses.

Isn't the 26th an artificial date? The market's closed, so no announcement can be made. Midday on the 24th is the actual deadline.

If nothing comes of this indicative offer and no one else is tempted out of the woodwork, I'd like the board to assure us that we're perfectly capable of continuing the task of de-risking.

I'm not fussed about a retreat of the sp provided we know we can continue to add value and make ourselves more attractive in due course.

Bozi, I absolutely agree with your last point. Over the years I've voiced my view that it was a huge mistake to let BHP on the register and we doubled down when we let JCC come on board. I understand all the reasons why we did it - they're the same reasons every company uses when it welcomes a trade investor, and yet invariably it ends in tears. A relationship where one party is a minnow and the other a giant is never going to be equitable. Our current situation reflects the mistakes of the past.

Bozi, have a look at Jerry's post. He answers the question.

Btw, I'm not 'turning on' Q , he and I have had many arguments over the years, but have been respectful to each other for a long time now, even though we still disagree on a number of things. But that doesn't alter the fact the diverse book argument was wrong.

I'm not sure how many times this needs to be said, but Dan wasn't responsible for the placing with JCC. The original agreement was made by SC and part of the deal was that the price would be 40% above the prevailing sp at the time it was transacted.

When he and PS took the reins, the company was more or less out of money and the new team had no wish or time to arrange a placing, which in any case would never have been at the premium JCC paid.

The blame lies with SC and the board who chose not to do the deal when the sp was much higher.

Q, it was reproduced on here at the weekend.

Q, I'm not saying it, rather it was a comment made by NM which someone reproduced on here over the weekend. (I've seen the original message, as have hundreds of people on Telegram).

As I said, I'm not sure I understand the thinking, but the board apparently does. Either way, I'm afraid the 'diverse book' mantra has been well and truly trashed.

Quite right, Jerry. I've lost count of the number of times many of us pointed this out.

It's also interesting to note that apparently the reason the board said it's 'minded' to recommend the offer was to avoid a hostile bid. Quite clearly this implies they didn't think they stood a chance in the face of hostile action, and by contrast they believe the current situation at least allows them the opportunity to find an alternative. (I'm not sure I understand this comment, but it's the argument we've been given)

The diverse book was always a total myth and recent events have conclusively proved it.

Nal, don't worry, I'm not wringing my hands, nor is my face 'disillusioned'. Given I'm sitting on a pretty tidy profit, it would be churlish to feel angry about events. Sure, after all this time I'm disappointed the indicative offer doesn't come close to the potential, but that's the way the cookie's crumbled...so far.

When I read posts from you like the last couple, you remind me of an enormous boil on the ar5e of humanity, and like all boils you need lancing. The volume of poison would fill a swimming pool.

MF, the details should be on whichever platform you use, in my case HL. If you use a broker they'll be able to help you.

Back in the '80s the UK Takeover Code (The Blue Book, as it was referred to) was 80 pages long, including appendices and sample documents, printed on A5 paper. Our job was to learn it by heart - it was the Bible of that world. (Bizarrely, I've still got mine)

Today, the code is approximately 150 pages of A4 paper. This is a graphic indication of how regulation and complexity has impacted the world of M&A. Is it any better? Does it protect shareholders more comprehensively? I doubt it. But it does allow advisors and lawyers the opportunity to attempt a justification of their vast fees.

The Stock Exchange Listing Particulars, the Yellow Book, was less than a third of what it is now. No wonder firms think twice before seeking a listing.

Sorry, just a useless fact which perhaps illustrates why we should be wary of laymen's commentary.

NMM, example: The CIPA is signed. It's of a price sensitive nature and shareholders MUST be informed so that they're in full possession of the facts before deciding whether to accept the offer or not.