Member Info for addicknt

DBW, the last one I can see was on the 1st last year. I can't be arsed to look back any further, but over time there will have been many of them.

It will have been released to reflect the increase in the number of shares following the issue of 1.3m to DC.
So, as much as I'd love it to be the precursor to a bid, it ain't.

Erm...it's a standard announcement, what are you implying?

Monte, you forgot $4.5m going awol.

RK, I'd been thinking along similar lines.
I wonder if the problem arose because the company tried to raise the full amount in one go and the market baulked at the prospect? Perhaps the view is that they should go for a smaller sum which will get us through and beyond the period in which the Porvenir PEA is completed, thus increasing our asset base, which in turn would increase the appetite for our shares?

Fort, you'd be surprised by just how wrong your first couple of sentences are. Companies and their advisors fail to raise funds regularly. Most will go away, re-think and then succeed, some fail completely. We are in the first category.

I don't think it's particularly helpful to use words such as "demise" to explain our current situation, mainly because it isn't accurate.
The company attempted a fund raise. For whatever reason - pricing, structure, current shareholder objections, or simply a case of the investment bank leading the exercise getting it wrong (this happens more regularly than you would think), it failed. However, the company has explained it is now investigating many other options, and I'm absolutely certain this is a statement of fact.
It's clear we've suffered reputational damage and, from the sound of it, have upset certain shareholders - again. However, we are NOT holed beneath the water line. Other options exist and although they may not be the company's first choice, one assumes they'll raise the requisite cash.
We do not know how BHP/NCM regard this situation, but it would fair to assume that if they were not consulted they may be less than happy. However, does this mean they won't participate in a new cash raise and will attempt to starve us of cash? I don't think so.
We have two main institutional shareholders who will have no intention of letting BHP get away with such a tactic - why would they? And we can add Valuestone and importantly, Mather, to that list.
We'll get the money, just not in the way the management wanted.
I see this as a gross tactical error that may - hopefully, lead to a publicly stated change in strategy.
I'm far from being either impressed or happy about the events of this week, and it's done nothing to help my view of DC, however, we don't know the full picture, but I'm confident we will see some positive news over the next few months.
One plea to management: please give yourselves a good shake, get a grip on reality and deliver some value to shareholders. After all, that's the ONLY reason for your existence.

Sean, if we're spending $5 billion per month we're in trouble.

Q, I'm assuming RK was referring to the current round of funding, not that which is required for construction.

LM, if BHP do end up owning the company, they will repay the monies immediately - as will virtually any other buyer. But I take you point.

Q, and this from a man who described the outcome of the 2020 (or was it 2019?) AGM, as a "triumph" for Mr Mather, who, if you've forgotten, was forced to resign shortly thereafter.
I'm sure you have many strengths - you keep telling us, so it must be true, but I'm afraid understanding corporate life and capital markets is most certainly not amongst them.

Excellent post, Bozi.
I agree, it looks as if we attempted to by-pass existing shareholders which, given the board's previous statements that it would consult with them, looks pretty damn weird and totally misguided. Yesterday's statement suggests we've had to go back with our tails between our legs. As BSC said, our lads appear to have a very limited understanding of capital markets.
On that topic, at the time of the Franco deal I pointed out the cost to the company and I have subsequently mentioned the impact of the accrued interest. It now seems the costs was even higher than we thought . It's no wonder BHP/NCM were up in arms.

BNC, you're right, it shouldn't have become a drama, particularly as we've known more money would be required from the day we completed the last one. As you say, such is the way with junior explorers.
However, it's quite obvious it's become a drama or, more specifically, a grave embarrassment.
It seems that we tried to go down a route which both failed as well as upsetting at least one of our institutional shareholders. This begs the questions, why did we go down that route - whatever it was and why did it fail? The other obvious question is why has the man responsible for our fund raising left the company a matter of hours before this all became public?
I would love to know where CGP stand on all this.

SM, agreed - it was awful.

smickster, it would allow us to definitively test the water as to how many potential buyers are out there. As I've said on countless occasions, if we simply allow BHP first crack, other bidders may well be deterred, particularly if we announce a deal in principle has been reached.
Any corporate financier would tell the company to market itself first and, if there was a decent level of interest, open the process up to competitive bids.
BHP are in a very strong position, but it's not unassailable and it's the duty of our director to establish the degree of interest out there.

Smickster, I agree, but if we manage the process it gives us a far greater chance of widening the pool of potential buyers. It is far more difficult to control a situation if you receive an unsolicited bid, particularly if the bidder is the largest shareholder on the register and the world's largest miner.

Indeed we have Smickster, which is why I said earlier that the presence of Norge and BR should give us some comfort. I would add Valuestone to that list.

Modest, as ever.

Smickster, who said anything about selling for peanuts? We should start the process now before we either run out of money, thus putting our backs against the wall, or we sell once we've been diluted even further.
We currently have cash and our negotiating position is okay.
Q, re: Berry Street, you are wrong and I have no idea how you can reach your conclusion. You may be good at interpreting technical data - as you often remind us, but you are not so good when it comes to understanding top level corporate stuff.

Q, in which case please explain Berry's letter.
I am not saying funding discussions are not ongoing, I'm saying an attempt at so doing failed and Berry's letter proves it. No company likes it to become known a funding attempt has failed and the RNS was an attempt to ameliorate the negative impact - it failed. We have never had anything similar and that on its own should tell you something.