Member Info for addicknt

But I emailed WI today and have received a lengthy and helpful reply. The following is a brief summary.

1) He believes SC has 'saved the company' and is pursuing the right strategy. It wasn't easy to cut overheads and to move to Ecuador, but it had to be done. He also referred to the previous mismanagement of the business.

2) The whole board is under pressure and he's expecting some changes after the agm. (Twigger for the chop?)

3) Our holding is a long way down Newmont's list of priorities.

4) He doesn't think BHP are a likely buyer and will be happy to sit and wait for the buyout.

5) He thinks the Chinese are the most likely buyers.

6) He had some mining experts visit the site recently and they came back extremely excited about the project and the 'amazing deposit we have'. He referred to the significant disconnect between the asset and market value.

7) He also referred to how good Sangha is at his job and how his interests are so closely allied to ours.

I was surprised and grateful he took the time to give such a long reply. Point 6 was new information to me.

Tesla, if you really want to know what is happening why don't you read the last RNS? The fact that you don't believe is irrelevant and does not mean its contents are untrue. I rather suspect if SC told you today is Wednesday you'd call him a liar.

Arok, yes, although he wasn't being specific, those comments were also interesting. If you recall SC slightly ducked the question recently, but I got the feeling he believed it is happening.

'84, I think he was assuming those shares would end up in retail hands, but I'm not sure why he thinks that. If another placing takes place the shares will, like all other placings, end up with sticky investors. Anyway, that's all academic because it ain't gonna happen.

DBW, yes, he's fairly emphatic about that issue. And of course, he's right. His comments about certain managers not having the right skill set was also interesting, although not exactly earth-shattering.

1984, no he didn't get it wrong. WI was saying he likes lots of shares in issue because it provides the liquidity he likes - he was bemoaning the lack of liquidity on TSX. In my opinion we most certainly don't want more shares in the market and it struck me as odd that he didn't seem to take the dilutive effect into account. I concluded he was a bit contradictory on this subject.

Where Q gets it wrong is in his last paragraph. WI has no interest in the company defending itself against a hostile bid - not that there's going to be one.

Overall, I thought that interview was interesting and he gave some good insight into his view of the market in certain critical minerals.

Quite right!

Somehow polymuff sounds so much better than the correct word. What next? Muffmatics?

Q, I wouldn't expect you to agree and I'm sure statistics are vital to the insurance industry. However, that's not the same thing as applying econometrics to macro-economics. Nor indeed, is it much good at the micro level.

Fort, they have committed to raising 2bn from disposals/rationalization and one would assume they'll go after the bigger stuff first - Havieron and Telfer included. You'd think we'd be some way down the list, and if they've concluded they don't wish to remain here for the long term, they may as well sit back and wait to see what emerges from the SR. In any event, their holding gives them a good negotiating position, which should also be helpful for us.

For some reason this bb has decided grammar and punctuation are no longer important and, as a consequence, has mangled my post.

quady, your post took me back to my a level economics exam and the relief i felt when i turned over the exam paper and the first question was something about supply and demand elasticity and the effect on price - it always was. and the same was true of my degree paper. it was the easiest question and you could guarantee top marks.

the fact is, the econometrics surrounding supply and demand are more or less useless - in the literal sense - for one reason; they cannot accurately assess human behaviour.

the truth is carlyle was right, economics really is the 'dismal science'. governments pay too much attention to economists, who rarely, if ever, get it right. and when they do, it's more by luck than judgement. they perform the epitome of graeber's description of 'bul***** jobs'.

Pactrol, indeed they could, but whilst the SR is ongoing the company would simply dismiss it. And without board support an unsolicited low-ball bid is going nowhere.

Yes, pactrol, there is. Have a read of the latest RNS, the details are all there.

Tesla, it was overly harsh of me to lump you in the same bracket as the Aussie muppet, because I know you are much smarter than that. However, the unsubstantiated negativity from certain people is getting extremely tedious and the endless comments saying the company's lying etc fall into exactly the same category as those who see nothing but sunlit uplands.

There has been much to criticise in the past - and I've done my fair share of it - but now we've got a greater degree of long-overdue clarity, I think people should accept what's been said by the company...until such time as they either deliver or fail.

Q, you're right, I have moved to a position which accepts a jv is a possibility. However, as you know, it's not an option I'd like to see, mainly because I've never been convinced of the economics, and it's my view that the company will reach the same conclusion once the SR is complete. But who knows?!

Q, are you sure that he's categorically said it's not for sale? Can you point us in the direction of the statement?

I think you're jumping to a conclusion based upon omission rather than a positive affirmation.

There's a big difference between the 'realists' as you call them and people like you. They tend to have constructive views and make a reasonable argument. You on the other hand, are simply here to satisfy some weird obsession you've got with a company in which you have no interest.

Anyway, you're in good company with your mate nal - neither of you have ever said anything remotely of interest; although to be fair, you can at least spell.

Eloro, they haven't.

TI, and that's obviously factually accurate. I think the reason for that is Maxit are running a very controlled process and want to have all the ducks in a row before they invite formal proposals. (see my earlier post)

Darren, Eloro spoke to the company and they supplied the answer. The SR is ongoing and all options remain on the table.

Anon, in one of your posts yesterday you said you'd assumed all 20 of the parties using the data room were potential buyers. SC made no mention of this and in my view, he deliberately avoided specifying the intentions of the interested parties.

What he has implied is that by reducing the initial scale of the project he thinks he'll attract people who don't have the scale to execute an outright purchase. I'm also sure there'll be financial institutions involved who've been asked to look at the project with a view to funding our end of the development costs, should we go down that route. In other words, he's positioning Cascabel so that various different options become available and the board can then objectively judge the relative merits in order to maximize shareholder value i.e does a jv offer a greater return than an outright sale, or vice versa. This makes sense to me. He wants to be able to say the board have assessed each proposal and x,y or z offers the greatest return. In other words, he's fulfilling his statutory responsibilities which require him to act in the best interests of all shareholders and he wants to avoid any accusations which may arise that the company hasn't reached a 'fair and reasonable' decision, which is what happened at BCN. Post-event, should it ever get nasty, he'd be able to provide evidence that he did the job properly.