Member Info for addicknt

Interesting comment about BHP, Q.
If they lack the power as you suggest, how do you explain the fact it was them who orchestrated the demise of Mather? How do you explain the fact that they put a stop to the recent fund raise? How do you explain the fact they instigated the complete re-balance of the board and Moller was shown the door?
I have said it often enough, but when we took their money we became hostages to fortune. Trade investors can be an absolute nightmare and BHP have proved the point. This was a huge strategic error.
I wish to God that this was not the case, but it is, and there's very little we can do about it. We attempted a rapprochement last year, but, just like the Norther Irish and EU situation, the wheels fell off within minutes.

Q, their CEO has said (in relation to them not exercising their GGP option) that they have many potential targets for their capital allocation and they did not consider buying the 5% to be the best of them.
The question is, given their current level of gearing, how could they afford the $1.5bn for their share of the development of Cascabel? Strategically they would be the very junior partner in a relationship with BHP, and I'm not sure that's where they'd want to be. My bet is still on them being sellers - but who knows? As for what the CEO has said, life has simply moved on and his previous comments are irrelevant.

One thing the NCM results have shown us is that they are not in a great place. Both copper and gold production were down - 15% in the case of copper, and they've had a significant increase in gearing.
At a time when they should be reporting fantastic results, they've done the opposite. This leads me to conclude they are not buyers here - despite their need for copper, and that they themselves are in a vulnerable situation. I imagine Barrick may have their slide rule out.

decision from NCM not to exercise their option to purchase and additional 5% of GGP. This follows their announcement to drop out of the CGP option, although I guess for very different reasons.

DBW, I haven't seen a single commentator suggest anything other than a significant increase in demand for copper coinciding with supply shortages and yet here we are languishing in the doldrums. It's completely counter-intuitive.

I suppose making this glossy video gave them something to do.

And cgp was only down 2.8%, despite their announcement. Our TSX price seems very odd.

DGR share price was unchanged.

DBW, in my opinion BHP will only want Cascabel and possibly Porvenir , and they'll have conversations with our board along those lines. Only if they get told to pish off will they consider a bid for the entire company and I'm certain they would prefer to avoid the hassle of doing that. At this stage of exploration the rest of our concessions will be of little interest to them. The cost of repaying the Franco monies will be taken into account when arriving at a valuation and will be deducted accordingly.
My guess is that DC would only consider this if all other avenues have been exhausted as I'm sure he wants to build some competitive tension into the equation.

sean, what would you do if you were in their shoes?
Yesterday's article suggesting they were blackmailing us was utterly outrageous. If true, it suggests our relationship with them has broken down completely and flies in the face of the peace treaty announced last year.
We have no way of knowing if it is in fact accurate, but if it is DC needs to face them down and push ahead with something else, even if it does provoke an open war.
We seem to have reached a crunch point with these blokes and we cannot allow them to push us around any longer.

Q, I seem to recall that you may have mentioned once or twice that you've been investing successfully for 400 years. How is it then that you have absolutely no idea how placings or fund raises in general work? Because it's abundantly clear you don't.
You've never worked in the capital markets and have never raised any money from them, and yet you come on here making statements with absolute conviction that you're right.
I wouldn't dream of making similar statements about being a technical analyst, or whatever it was you did, so why do you persist with yours about capital markets?

"No deal was submitted, so it cannot have failed".
By some margin the daftest post of the day.

Quite right, LM. 10% should be more than enough to get us to the next stage...hopefully!

Damers, that's certainly my take.
Ingo will have done a lot of work and who can blame him if he felt let down? AS is a different matter and her departure is a complete mystery...maybe she turned out to be stark raving bonkers?

RK, I'd imagined you were sobbing gently into your lunchtime soup.

Q, you have absolutely no knowledge or understanding of how fund raising works and, to repeat myself, yet again you've fallen for very transparent corporate pr.
Just for the sake of argument, if your argument is correct, why did our finance team depart?
I'm afraid you are wrong.

RK, your filtering meant you missed him accusing you of not knowing anything about raising capital.

Q, yet again you've fallen for corporate pr. We tried to raise money and we either pulled the issue because of existing shareholder objections, or the market wasn't interested. DC tried to dress this up - understandably so. But whichever way you look at it, we went out to the market to get cash and we didn't get any; ergo, it failed.

So, we simply asked a "few questions" and dropped the whole idea, did we? Perhaps that explains why we lost our finance team?

BNC, I share your view, but, the fact is we are patently an unhappy ship and there's obviously a great deal going on in the background which is of a concerning nature.
I'm all for positivity but at the same time we must be cognisant of the fact that our main shareholders are making life difficult and DC's got his work cut out.