Member Info for addicknt

You are spot on with regard to your comment about the market not valuing things properly and the risks it poses. I believe we are in the same situation, although I can't see BHP missing out.

L2, that's a very interesting situation. I was a holder of BCN for a number of years but sold out when Ganfeng came on board. I could see it only going one way and all of the excitement disappeared.
I've drawn a comparison between us and BCN before, although we have more options. But what it does reveal is the danger of letting a single dominant shareholder appear on the register.
Many of the BCN are disappointed, although if you bought the shares fairly recently, you're looking at a very healthy gain.

BNC, yes, at least we know they have a legal obligation to update the register.
This issue shows just how difficult it is to understand the rules. On my bookshelves I still have the copies of the Blue Book (the Takeover Code) and Yellow Book (the Listing requirements) I was issued with when I worked in corporate finance in the '80s. The Blue Book runs to about 60 or 70 small single-sided pages, including pro-forma forms. The Yellow Book is even shorter. They were easy to understand and were the bibles of their day. Compare that with what exists nowadays. The current regs are like reading War and Peace with thousands of cross references etc. It's a total farce.

This may amuse you:
I decided to ask an old mate who spent 40 years in the City and was head of corporate finance for one of the largest global brokers. His response was: " You're testing me now! It would be a guess but I'd assume if they hold more shares, even though the percentage remains the same, they'd need to declare the fact"
The rules are so opaque that even an expert is unclear! I spent some time this morning looking at the regulations and I'm still none the wiser...it's more complex than just looking at DTR 5.1.2. Oh well, I suppose it doesn't matter in the end. What we do know is that they've invested approximately 20M of new cash between them.

CD, yes, that's correct for normal market based trading, but an issue of new shares needs to be notified - at least that's my interpretation of the rule, although I accept I may be wrong. And you are right about the Chinese - I wasn't expecting anything from them.
Pinot, that's an interesting point. NM revealed how many new shares he subscribed for but it was in a personal not corporate capacity. So I 'm a bit unclear about that one. I guess it will be revealed in due course.

to me that Tenstar, Samuel Holdings, BHP and Newcrest are now in serious breach of Rule 5.8.3.
For the life of me I don't understand how or why they are avoiding their statutory obligations.

DBW, who writes this nonsense? Although I obviously agree with the overall sentiment, the article could have been written by my three year old granddaughter. I do hope no one pays for this tosh.

Just to put this free cash flow issue to bed, in the last full financial year BHP generated $8.6bn, or approximately $720m per month. As a result of increased commodity prices the forecast for the current year is significantly higher.
Schlem was right; they could buy us for about three months FCF. These are the facts.

Patrm, I'm not. The guy made an incorrect assertion in an testy response to schlem. He needs to have the truth pointed out to him, although he'll never listen to it.

schlem, I suggest you ask Quady if he understands the concept of free cash flow and how much BHP is currently generating. His response to you implies he hasn't got a scooby.

Dart, thanks for the response.
My thinking is that there is no way they are here simply to end up with a small minority holding; it simply doesn't fit with their corporate strategy. Consequently, they'll either all of it, or at least a majority stake in a jv.
The competitive situation is interesting and I can only hope they don't get it all their own way, although they are currently in a strong position.

DartFrog, how do you see BHP/NCM fitting in to the equation?

BNC ? Assuming you were addressing me, in what way did I suggest anything 'negative'? I merely stated a fact...perhaps you find those difficult to deal with?

Bubble, catch up at the back...he's no longer in charge.

RK, "MRE shown for Porvenir" Where? I can't see it and in any event, it would come in the form of an RNS first.

CD, you accused me of 'over-analysing' the other day...pot, kettle?:)

Inevitably, Rule 5 is mired in caveats, exemptions and provisos, but Rule 5.8.3 is crystal clear (at least to me it is). It says any transactions should be reported 'as soon as possible, but not later than two trading days' after the event.
How or why are BHP and NCM circumventing this requirement? And Tenstar, come to that. It's very odd that two major companies appear to be disregarding the rules like this.

But where are the announcements that matter?

BR didn't participate either; or if they did it was insufficient to keep them above 5%.

Q says they were scaled back. My money is on them either maintaining their percentage holding or, as a result of the dilution of NM et al, they will have increased it.
Could they both be at 15% now? Now that would be interesting because if at any stage they were deemed to be acting in concert they would be forced to make a bid for the company. My guess is they wouldn't want to be in that position...yet. So, 14.5% each?