Member Info for addicknt

Monte, in fairness he wasn't the only one.

RK, I'm neither impressed nor unimpressed - I'll adjust my views according to how he performs, which is all that matters. I'm simply happy we've got this out of the way.

Bozi, I'll concede 'upper middle management' - akin to managing a Championship side and hoping the manager of a Premiership side shakes your hand after his side beat you five nil in the FA Cup fourth round.
As for connections; he'll have spent a fair bit of his early career at BHP ferreting around in the stationary cupboard for a new stapler for his boss. However, we already have all the connections we need with BHP and his presence won't make much difference.
Having said that, I'm pleased we've got this issue dealt with and I'm sure he's a good bloke, but I simply cannot see this will change the ultimate direction for our company...bigger forces are at work.

Bozi, he was middle management and left some time ago. However, I'm right with you about Rio etc.

schlem, I'm not sure how this could be described as a BHP appointment. As for meaning no takeover, BHP won't give a flying toss as to whether we have a CEO or not, nor who it is.

mogg, I think I was jumping the gun as it's now visible.
I see the head of HR has resigned and that the repayment of the Company Funded Loan Plan has been extended by six months. The participants owe $6.4m. Does anyone know who the participants are? I wonder why it's been extended?
In all other respects I didn't find too much to get excited about.

It's supposedly on the web site but I'm struggling to find it.

He also makes an interesting point about governance and communication during the past 18 months and just how difficult it has been; the implication being that he hasn't had a chance to see people face-to-face and how Zoom is no substitute.
I understand that as far as it relates to staff in Ecuador and London, as well as trying to attract new institutional investors, but it doesn't explain the situation with BHP or NCM, both of whom he'd have been able to see for large parts of the past year.

Really interesting stuff, Italian. A very clear indication of what he thinks about the position of BHP. In fact, I'm not sure he could have been any clearer. He sees a direct threat and quite obviously thinks a hostile situation is possible.

CD, I'm sure both BHP and NCM would block any such move.

It's no bad thing to change auditor. If a company keeps the same one for years both parties can become complacent and get far too close to each other, the negative results of which have been seen so regularly over recent years.
The fact that PWC will have conducted considerable dd and still want the job is very good news.

BBG, I'm pretty damn sure I have far more shares than you and have probably been holding a great deal longer; so I'm afraid I'm not inclined to take any note of what you have to say about anything.

RK, I could be flippant and simply say you can't, but I'm not sure that's strictly true. There are people out there who'll take this sort of risk, but the cost to the company would be enormous. Someone like Elliot, for example. I spent two years acting as a part-time, industry specific advisor to them and never in my business life have I come across such absolutely vile individuals. I parted company with them when I advised a friend not to deal with them, even though he needed money. Pound of flesh doesn't even come close to describing their modus operandi.

Franco will go through the same credit committee process as any other traditional lender and shareholder unrest is a massive red flag. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.
Of course, there are lenders out there who thrive on unrest, but they're the vulture funds and we wouldn't want anything to do with them.

There is very little chance of the company raising any more debt in the markets unless our main shareholders are onside. Lenders do not like getting involved in situations where there is shareholder unrest. They need to know all parties are pulling in the same direction.

Italian, you make a reasonable assumption that NM is still driving the agenda, but do we have any hard evidence to prove the point? If he is, what's point of KM? Window dressing?

Woody, I've done the same thing.

CD, it seems to me the only way we'll see a bid from a third party is if BHP decide to walk away, which doesn't appear very likely. Why would anyone waste time and money on becoming a stalking horse for BHP?
Separately, as each day passes without any announcements it becomes more apparent that the company will release a slew of news either just before the AGM notice, or shortly thereafter. If they fail to do so they're in for a rough ride. Not long to wait now!

Italian, I would suggest waiting until the AGM notice and Resolutions are released. Hopefully there will also be supporting information. If there isn't, we should make clear to the company that if they fail to provide information they cannot expect our votes.
We must not have a re-run of last year when the chairman didn't even bother to read a statement.

Q, thank you. As I've said before, the technicalities of trading are not my strong point.