Member Info for addicknt

Good post, Fort.

Thanks, chaps.

What's the IRR?

IP, your previous post said no one gives a fig about Tam, so why does it matter if we have four or four hundred rigs there?

Nal, please provide proof that I've fabricated anything. I'm not talking about your suppositions, but actual proof.

NMM, the potential conflict of interest was very much on Smith's mind when I spoke to him in May. We want their money, we could do with all the technical help we can get and we don't want them buying Newmont's shares, so how do we square the circle? It's a tricky balancing act.

NMM, didn't Jiangxi offer to make their technical expertise available? I wonder if we've taken advantage of the offer?

PS, I wasn't referring to Cascabel. I meant the assets which may end up in Exco, which currently sit in the books at virtually nothing, and that appears to the market's view. In fact, given the levy issue, it could be argued they are a liability and have a negative value.

Jerry, that depends upon how good a job DV does in terms of persuading people to value Exco generously. Based on current asset value it's virtually worthless.

No matter what their reasons for taking a short position, the one thing we do know is that they've well and truly fecked-up. What a shame.

Q, have you seen the FCA's proposed changes to short reporting? They intend to aggregate and anonymize short positions. The reporting requirement, currently 0.2%, will now apply to the overall aggregated position. In other words, it will catch all shorts, not just those above 0.2%.

I read an article over the weekend which featured the boss of a hedge fund who is strongly opposed to the changes and who argues funds must continue to be named as it highlights their views on a particular company.

Fort, I think you've hit the nail on the head. The one thing we can be sure of is that it's not a precursor to a bid.

RT, I wonder if potential investors would be deterred by NM running the show? Let's face it, he's made a few enemies along the way.

IP, which is what I said. There's no point issuing it prior to entering an offer period for the simple reason it may not be up to date.

Additionally, Rule 2.10 of the Code stipulates the number of shares in issue has to be published at the time a company enters an offer period, not prior to it.

IP, if you have a look at the Stock Exchange RNS service you'll see numerous examples of companies releasing these details. It's entirely routine and doesn't necessarily mean corporate action is on the cards, although I wish it did.

The shareholder summary in the most recent study is interesting.

It describes Insiders as holding 15%, which I guess is Maxit and NM/DGR; retail as owning 30%, which is less than I thought and institutions and brokers as owning 23%, which is higher than I thought, although I'm guessing they've included nominee holdings which will predominantly be retail - or is it?

If the institutional holdings/brokers don't include nominee holdings, there has been a significant shift in the make-up of our register. If it does, not much has changed and DV needs to do more work in persuading institutions to invest. (it could also be argued that dressing up the I&B category is a bit of cosmetic window-dressing, although it's a fairly common practise)

Damers, thanks. I like the fact we're aggressively pushing the under-valuation issue.

Q, that's incorrect. There have been a number of occasions when it appeared to have worked in the UK and US, although some economists, particularly those of the Left, dispute this. My own view is that it does work as it reflects human behaviour.

Imagine if a coalition of the Fruit and Nut party and the vegtabilists got their hands on the tiller. I'm pretty sure we'd soon find out if Laffer is correct, but not in a good way.

Has issued it's first quarter activities and cash flow report.

The cash position shows A$5.3M available cash. Appendix 8 reveals that at current run-rates this is sufficient for a further 2.7 quarters.

Regulatory requirements ask three follow-up questions. 1) does the company expect to have the same level of quarterly expenditure and if not, why not? 2) Does the company have any plans to raise more cash and does it think it'll be successful? 3) Does the company have enough cash to meet its business objectives, and if so, on what basis? The company has responded to all three questions with an N/A comment.

I know nothing about ASX requirements, or how Aussie companies work, but I'd have thought those three questions are pretty important. However, there's a get-out clause. A company only has to answer them if they have less than two quarters cash, so DGR has scraped through, although it looks as if they'll need a cash raise of some description by the middle of next year.