Member Info for addicknt

If I was to offer a balanced view of those characters last night, I'd point out that they were responding to Novice's posts on the POLY page, where he has consistently pointed out the truth with regard to holding shares in any of these Russian companies. Unfortunately, many of the posters have abandoned any sense of morality and are only seeing investment in these companies through the prism of profit. Personally, I find this repugnant.
First of all there are a number of them who actively support the barbarian in the Kremlin, then there are those who are so ignorant of what's going on that they simply don't have the intellectual capacity to understand what the future holds for any business with Russian associations.
It sickens me that there are people like them in the UK and they are no better than the likes of Lord Haw Haw in W11. I rarely feel strongly about things, but this is an exception and, for the first time in my life, I actively hope they lose their money - they most certainly deserve to.

Bob, delist?! I should sincerely hope not. Do you want to own shares in a private company?

Well, it's just broken 32p so we can live in hope.

Funnily enough I'm not one of his detractors, indeed, he produces some good thought-provoking posts. However, as far as contacts with the company are concerned, I do not regard them as being useful. In fact, we have regularly been reminded that they never involve the dissemination of any inside info (I should hope not) and that all of it is publicly available. The fact that one or two people in the company are willing to talk does not, in my book, prove that they care about retail holders. And RK, I'm sorry if that upsets you, but it's my opinion.

You are merely a sop, RK. Btw, what happened to the 'best ever hole'?

smickster, companies don't give a monkey's about private investors, until such time as they are needed - like the 2020 AGM.
We are here as liquidity fodder and in all other respects we are ignored or actively regarded as a pain in the ass.

RK, personally I see no chance of there being a jv whereby BHP own 51%. Why would they settle for that when they quite clearly don't need to?

Thanks, Bob. I don't use twitter and can't access the Pentwater site. Are you able to post? Or perhaps a brief digest? Thank you.

Bob, which article was that?

Sean, scroll back a couple of pages and you'll find it. It's been posted twice already.

Novice, if you nearly shat yourself at 30p, heavens knows what'll happen when we hit £1.50. Suggest you stock-up with Pampers.

I should add that there are various ways the parent company could fund the ongoing business such that it never paid a dividend. Therefore, the minority shareholder would never get any benefit from his shares and eventually the parent could make an offer to buy the remaining shares for a pittance. Putting it bluntly, anyone who pursued that path would have to be an idiot.

rcgl, that's a good question.
Typically, it's very rare for a minority shareholder who doesn't want to sell to hold onto the shares if for example, there's an 80% take-up. The company would be de-listed and the shareholder would have no voice or influence. Additionally, if the business became a subsidiary company of a giant like BHP, the funding for development may involve equity from the parent to the subsidiary, thereby diluting the minority holder out of sight. In other words, holding a small stake in a private company which is controlled by someone else is an unappealing prospect.

Another thought occurred as I was out on my morning walk: Yesterday, I posed the question what else could Henry and Biswas be talking about other than a takeover? Well, I missed the obvious; the sale of NCM's shares to BHP. or perhaps an agreement to pledge their shares should BHP bid.

Yup, they were made to look pretty stupid and I'm damn sure they don't want a repeat, particularly as we are a much more important prospect than Noront.

Indeed it didn't, RK. But I'm pretty sure you'd agree that it's better to start off with an agreed deal rather than going hostile straightaway?

Q, to complete the quote 'Plan A begets Plan B'.
Anyway, I only posted this morning to get a bit of debate going about the Tuesday's news article, which is the most interesting thing we've seen for ages.

DBW, indeed, but an agreed deal makes it much more difficult for a third party. Sure, a board can change its mind and I'd be astonished if BHP managed to persuade NM and DGR to give an irrevocable undertaking, but by virtue of being agreed it acts as a deterrent for a third party.

Q, I'm really sorry but you are the only person who talks about a diverse book (when are you going to refer to it by its correct name i.e register?), every one else understands it's a myth created by you.
By 'consultative' I assume you mean 'agreed' and you are entirely wrong if you believe we would have the ability to 'dictate terms'. The threat of a hostile bid and the obvious implication that we'd lose our other jewels in the process, is sufficient to make any discussions pretty evenly balanced. On the one hand we have the tasty prospect of offering BHP an agreed deal, on the other, failure to agree a deal would lead to us losing the lot and our board of directors losing their jobs.
It's an interesting situation and is full of many twists and turns.

Q, a hostile bid is costly and time consuming, however my main point is about uncertainty. Although on paper it would look like a walkover, every hostile situation carries a certain degree of doubt; in this instance it would be centred around the possibility, no matter how remote, that a third party may enter the fray. BHP would prefer to have a clear run with the support of our board.