Member Info for addicknt

'they' not 'that'.

Q, I stand corrected. I'm sure if that really believed that they would have sold, wouldn't they?

anon, I can't say I saw people saying we couldn't raise the cash for the short-term requirement. Certainly there were some who were expressing concern that we were getting perilously close to the edge, but that was merely a statement of fact.

anon, there's a huge difference between a small facility of 50m and one of 3bn+

Q, indeed, but my point was we may not need to do it via the loan mechanism.

Ignore my last sentence, it's nonsense. I guess we'd simply cancel the loan once the merger is completed.

Q, as yet we don't have the 30m loan. In fact, it may no longer be necessary - we can push ahead with the merger, CGP can choose to sell the shares pre-merger, meaning we have the cash on the balance sheet when the merger is completed or, we can inherit the shares and place them from treasury ourselves.
Either way, our balance sheet will look healthier with cash rather than leverage.

DBW, our absolute priority was to get some funding and personally I don't care from where, or what form, it comes in.

Thank heavens for that! And thank you porv for posting. I liked Irwin's tweet!

There's a lengthy interview with Mike Henry of BHP in today's Sunday Times.
Yet again he demonstrates his highly contradictory and confusing message with regard to copper. To paraphrase: "We want copper ...it's where the future is, but we are not going to pay for it". This is explains why he's made two futile bids so far and poses the obvious question, how on earth else are you going to get your hands on the commodity the whole world wants without paying for it?
I'm beginning to think this bloke may be a bone fide moron.

Orthern, I suppose it could be argued that by publicly stating a range of values for Cascabel, DC has made a rod for his own back. He has been very clear and it would be difficult to sell a deal to shareholders if the minimum value he mentioned is not achieved.
I wonder if his openness was to give a steer to any interested party?i.e "don't bother getting in touch if you think you can get it for less." Mind you, I'm not sure how sensible it was to provide an upper limit. I know his figures were purely indicative, but nevertheless...

The predictability of the daily pattern is getting very boring.

Novice, so you think trying to understand why we are at our current valuation is 'trying to talk others into uncertainty'? Hmm.

LM, indeed. I fear that when the bid arrives RK will explode, just like Mr Creosote.

You are absolutely right, Sean. It's just my opinion that, for the lack of a better alternative, the market is judging us by our net asset position.

The net asset position takes into account the various categories you describe, but bear in mind virtually all of our assets relate to Cascabel and the rest is de minimus. As for other concessions, we have never been given any credit for them, which is hardly surprising. Hopefully that will change once we have an MRE for Porv.
Of course you are right about accounts merely being a snapshot, but the fact is the only change that has occurred since the y/e is that the cash position has diminished.

Incidentally, I don't believe anyone is applying any sophisticated valuation techniques to us at the moment for the simple reason it's virtually impossible to do so.
Our assets could be worth multiple billions or, they could be worth nothing - I'm applying that comment to us, not the asset itself. And the current absence of cash makes the task even more difficult.

I didn't say it was; it's simply one valuation, which incidentally, is not too far off the mark.

The combined net asset position of CGP and us is approx £482m. The combined market cap is approx £446m. In other words, the current share price of both companies is giving us a valuation roughly equivalent to net assets.
We all believe this is a significant under-valuation, but it's easy to understand why the market doesn't.

Good to see someone cough-up 200k for 1.2m shares.