Member Info for addicknt

So says the man who has absolutely no experience of corporate finance.

Zoros, I had the same reply, which is comforting. It was my mistake due to the fact the wording was rather misleading.

LM, thanks.

So, the State will receive the same profits as the company? Have I read this correctly?

Optimus, a good post and thank you for your comment.

SM, yes, I'm fully aware of our good relationship, but how do you know BHP don't enjoy a similarly close situation? They are the world's largest miner and wield far greater weight than we do. They will have developed contacts with all the right people and doors will undoubtedly open for them.
I do not see question of relationships playing any part in the way this eventually unfolds.

cadell, why would BHP want NCM or us to be involved? They don't need the interference.

rcgl, yes they would want the 90%, that's why I don't see them making a hostile move - unless the company suddenly decides to pish them off again. This has agreed deal written all over it...it's just a question of when.

CD, that was always Mather's biggest worry and I suspect the current board feel threatened in the same way. It will be interesting to see whether the rapprochement with BHP/NCM/CGP has the desired effect.

CD, you're absolutely right - the task of the board is to create some form of competitive tension in order to extract maximum value and making noises about smelter deals and production dates is all part of that process. It won't change the outcome though, although it will hopefully push the price up.

This debate about whether it's 2025 or 2028, or any date in between, is entirely without consequence - we will not be mining it.
Assuming BHP want the asset, and at this stage it's illogical to assume anything else, they are not going to let us build the mine. Nor, in my opinion, will they let us attempt to fund it.

And one day Quady, you'll wake up to the power of BHP.

Jerry, inevitably I sold my MGGT shares a while back! It seems everyone is seeing value in UK stocks apart from our own fund management industry.
As far as SOLG is concerned I can still see a way to significantly enhanced value. A few well structured jvs and a disposal of Alpala would do the trick. Both the FT and ST have recently published articles re-emphasising the looming global copper shortage...surely our management team can exploit this?

Jerry, you were asking for examples of large premiums paid during takeovers - have a look at MGGT today. Mind you, at current levels it doesn't help us that much.

Weird how this BBG character has managed to unite Quady and I, despite Qs ongoing rudeness.

Rk, so I come back to the central question which sits at the heart fo all this: why would BHP be content with a 14% stake in a one of the most important copper finds in recent history? You know as well as I do, they won't be.

You're not answering the question.

RK, I'll ask you again - how does that square with the RNS?

RK, interesting comment from your source, who you clearly believe. How does this square with the RNS (an official document) which stated quite categorically that the company had agreed with CGP to investigate other strategic options? And how is it compatible with the very obvious truth that BHP are not in this to end up with a minority stake?

LunchMoney, they won't. They're not a charity. And you can forget the diverse book argument; it's a complete red herring.