Member Info for addicknt

BPHIL, I couldn't find that, but it would hardly be surprising.
For me, this MD&A explains very clearly why action is needed pronto. Thank heavens we've got the ball rolling.

Novice, I must have missed that - where is it recorded?

It's interesting to note how little drilling is now being done and yet we continue to employ 750 people in Ecuador. I understand why we're doing it, but in effect we are paying a lot of people to do nothing, or very little. Mind you, the same is true of our numerous non-execs.

$11.5m cash at the end of Sept. $14.5m spent in the previous quarter, which was down from $22m in the same quarter last year.
I could see no mention of DC's options being withdrawn...this sticks in the throat.

Q, which explains why it's ill-advised to believe 100% of what companies tell you.
I fear your prediction of 50% or less is some way off the mark. This is NOT what the CGP boys have signed-up for.

Indeed, copper - I can't recall you saying we could do it alone.

Bozi, you are quite correct - I cannot speak for everyone. Although I think it's fair to say the majority on here appear to share the same view. And yes, we are a little delirious...a bit like a prisoner who goes over the top on the day of his release.

Indeed, Q, which is why I asked him to drop the idea. Mind you, if we sell 85/90%, which is what will happen, and we end up with a decent divi, I'll be happy. Obviously, we'll have to find our share of the development costs, but GGP did it, so we may be able to as well.
However, what the article DOESN'T say is that we will raise all the money ourselves...with minimal dilution, and take this to production as 100% owners. For the life of me I can't recall who's been saying that for the past millennia.

LM, assuming we end up with a jv, what's your target divi?

We're all delighted you and your allies are now directing the strategy of our company. We've suffered years of guff from our board, who had lost sight of what was really achievable and what wasn't.
One request: Can you please drop any reference to 'partners'?
We want a clean exit from Cascabel and, quite frankly, if you want to sell the lot you'll have my vote.
One final request: Christmas is just around the corner and it'd be lovely if you can get the ball rolling before then.
Yours sincerely,
Addicknt ...One very frustrated shareholder.

So, all along it was a bluff! You'd have thunk it?!

RK, I didn't see the answer and in any event the various related posts were removed...not sure why.

If they do sell the shares I hope they sell them to a financial institution which is only interested in making a short term gain...a sort of arbitrage position. In order to make a bidding process effective, the last thing we want is for them to fall into the hands of a trade buyer.

RK, it's the same process for all platforms. I use HL these days, but I've never thought of it in terms of it being a 'firm' quote. It's merely the price and I can decide to transact or not.
In ship broking you will see firm and indicative offers - the latter meaning there's no obligation involved and is really just a means of testing the water - excuse the pun.
With regard to the other question; you said you knew why AS had left...care to spill the beans?

RK, what's the difference between being firmly bid and just being bid? And how can you tell the difference? Surely, being bid is a definitive position and it's neither firm nor soggy?
BTW, I note my question asking you why AS was sacked was deleted. What was the answer?

Who is really pulling the strings now? The assumption appears to be that it's NM, but surely that can only be the case if CGP and he have kissed and made up? Years of out-right animosity and public disdain put to one side.
CGP appear to be in control now, why has this been allowed to happen before the merger has been completed?
What was the real reason behind DC's disappearance? Was he really siding with BHP? If that was the case, why did he sign off on the funding package? Indeed, why did he even start the process of another royalty deal?
Are the departures of AS, IH and DC all linked? Seems unlikely, but the timing is surprising.
What's Twigger's role in all of this? My personal view is that he's much more influential than perhaps we've given him credit for.
What are our non-execs up to? Are they merely the standard glove puppets, or are any of them actually exerting real influence? I think we have nine or ten of them...the same number as HSBC!
It's very obvious that CGP insisted on the strategic review as a pre-condition of the merger, was this at the heart of DC's ejection?
In some ways you could say all of this is irrelevant because it's already happened. But for me, the answers to these questions will dictate which route we are going to take.

The mining framework has changed significantly in the past two years, specifically as it relates to Cascabel.

Q, sorry I didn't answer your question about funding.
As far as I can see there were no references to this is in the RNS, although that doesn't mean it hasn't been included in the terms of engagement.
Having said that, it's difficult to see how such an exercise could be of any practical use - for the simple reason that at the moment it's an undeliverable.

Q, that's a good question. The outcome is often a reflection of what shareholders and the market are demanding and this doesn't necessarily mean that it's best for the long term.
I consider our situation to be unusual, for the simple reason that I don't believe we can actually achieve what may be better in the long term - if that sounds a bit odd, it's because it is.
Obviously, you have a different view of life, which I respect.
Almondstone, the simple answer is, no they don't. However, if a board wishes to avoid a share price catastrophe, they'd be well advised to listen what's being said by the advisers. There are plenty of examples of companies saying; "we've run the exercise, but we consider the interests of the shareholders are best protected by the status quo". However, I do not believe this is an option here. Something has to change and it needs to do so asap. Bear in mind, this is a company with nearly half a billion market cap and yet we don't even have a full time CEO or CFO, and to say our board has been unstable of the past couple of years is a gross understatement.

Almostdone, the process is designed to provide a range of options and for the board and its advisors to decide which of them provides the best opportunity for value creation and shareholder return. It's not about what's in the ground - that work is ongoing and is a separate activity.
You suggest the board should already know this and of course they will have their own views. However, they will not have the same depth of knowledge of the potential buyer/partner environment, nor are they experts in capital markets...that's why advisors are appointed. The appointments are also designed to provide an objective view of possible outcomes which should remove the possibility of accusations that the board has not acted in the best interests of all shareholders.
Most people on here are of the opinion that a full sale of the company or disposal of Cascabel is the best route to pursue - others believe we should continue to plough our own furrow and move towards production. It's also the case that CGP/Irwin/Sangha all feel a sale is the best way to go and bear in mind our new interim CEO is a CGP appointee.
Strategic reviews are often a euphemism for finding a buyer, and most of us feel that's the case here. However, I would add this board has a track record of surprising us, so who knows what the outcome will be? Logic says one thing, but logic doesn't always prevail.