Member Info for addicknt

As long as they receive a simple majority the board should ignore the Code and any protestations from BHP/NCM.
This goes against the grain for me, but these are different circumstances and we're facing an existential threat.

DBW, sadly one or two on here have already stated they'll be voting against some of the directors. It's pretty obvious they don't understand the situation. Hopefully they'll change their minds and issue new instructions to their proxies.

Q, you mention misrepresentation, I fear you are equally guilty. Way back in time I may have suggested a bid was on its way and I was self-evidently wrong. Since then I've been careful not to suggest timelines, only that it was an inevitability. I have followed this approach with regard to valuation, as well, and have never given one.
If I may return to your view and the suggestion I've misrepresented you again. You've now accepted we cannot and will not take this to production on our own (I hope I haven't misrepresented your statements) and are now of the opinion a jv will happen, but that you are not really excited by the prospect. So, if we can't go it alone, and a jv isn't that interesting, surely the best option is a disposal?

Q, the track record of the company in terms of delivering what it says is abysmal. However, having said that, I do believe the new team will, and given the evidence of what's going on, I believe we're heading for an exit.

Q, putting to one side your usual narrative, may I ask why you think a jv would be so good for shareholders?
We would be minority holders and would have little control of the situation, but even that isn't the real reason not to want one.
Let's say we end up with 20%, and after ten years the project has a value of 10bn... 2bn value attributed to us isn't exactly that exciting, is it? And then there's the issue of why any major(s) would want to have us owning anything when they quite clearly don't need us.
I understand why you like the idea of a jv, but fail to see why you think it's the road to riches.

rcgl, thanks for that - very helpful.

I think the truth is none of us has got a scoobie and it's unlikely we'll ever be enlightened.

Q, I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that's what's happened. They would not have been able to buy all those shares at the exact price of 19.20 from multiple sellers and you can't apply an average price when reporting.

Yes, obviously I'm completely onside with all of that, but this was not a market accumulation so must have been a single seller and yet we've seen no evidence of that in the trades. And the markets reaction is certainly counter-intuitive.

Q, yes, I had a look as well and couldn't see any evidence of a short position. So what is the instrument referred to which increases their holding by 14.5m shares?
I'm tying myself in knots on this one.

RK, what's your take on the situation, specifically the share purchase?

lost, we don't have that number of shares held in Treasury.

if I've understood this correctly - and there's a good chance I haven't, we have an existing shareholder who's increased their holding via a short position, thus giving them more votes at the agm, whilst simultaneously protecting themselves against a drop in the sp. Or is it the other way round? i.e they've lent the stock.
Whatever it is, the other transaction is far more interesting. Who were the sellers and who who bought them? The absence of an announcement from CGP suggests it wasn't them selling, so who else has that number of shares and is happy to get rid of them at this critical juncture? Indeed, why would anyone sell at the moment? Could it have been Valuestone selling to Jiangxi? Or has BHP/NCM had enough?
It can't have been an accumulation of shares, over the past few weeks, as has been suggested, because there haven't been that many shares traded and you wouldn't see two single purchases. And it can't be anything to do with the placing as the price is wrong. Or is it a transfer between two related parties?
I must admit, I really don't understand this move. The timing seems extremely odd. Maybe we'll get some clarification this morning.

Killjoy, that's my take on it.

The whole idea of these holdings announcements is that they're meant to be transparent. Unfortunately, they are so opaque they create confusion for those of us who are not market experts.

Are these two things actually related? At the moment it appears not.

Bubble, only if the buyer already had a notifiable interest, or this purchase pushed them over the percentage.
So the question is, who were the sellers?

?

SM, don't be daft! He's never said any of those things! Or if he did, he didn't really mean it.

I believe the 1bn was totally misrepresented. There's no way it was anything other than expressions of interest. At that stage we didn't even have a PFS, let alone a DFS, so there was nothing for lenders to base a decision on.