Member Info for addicknt

Q, in 40 years, not once have I been involved in a valuation exercise where an actuary has been involved. Not once. It may happen when a company goes bust, I wouldn't know.

Rk, you are spot on with regard to dilution. If it's going to happen on a large scale I want to be able to vote on it and not give blanket authourity to the board. That happened at BCN and it's been a disaster for ordinary shareholders.

Acquinaga, that's very interesting indeed.

Q, not sure what being a trainee actuary has got to with anything, nor your ability to punch mumbers into a spreasheet, but just for guidance, what do think a coroprate financier doe as part and parcel of their job? The answer is company valuation. So, with the greatest of respect, please don't tell me I don't know how to do it - it's part of my professional life for 40 years, and was not a hobby.

Q, as for my voting intentions, I've already voted in favour of resolutions 1-10 and against the rest.

Q, given your in depth knowledge of corporate matters, perhaps you can tell me the last time you saw an announcement like todays? I'll save you the bother, it's as rare as hens teeth and in fact, it resembles the type of document you only normally see when a company is subject to a takeover. And when has this particular company ever released a similar plea? I don't recall seeing one.
Sorry, old bean, this is way out of the norm and please, just for once, accept what you're being told.

the unprecedented nature of today's announcement, I wonder exactly what it is that's spooked them?
Have they received notice from one or more of the major shareholders of their intentions to vote against? If so, which resolutions do they object to and why? Or has the proxy company picked up rumours of shareholder intentions?
Whatever the answer, the fact is they are spooked. As others have pointed out, private investors are normally an irrelevance when it comes to AGMs, so the company must have had a look at the arithmetic and concluded we are needed which, in turn, suggests it's more than one main shareholder who's taken umbrage. As much as anything, this demonstrates how the 'diverse book' argument is wrong. It is exposing our vulnerability and points the way to future developments.
I also happen to believe BHP must be viewed as one of the objectors. If it were just CGP and NCM, NM wouldn't be worried and could win the day.

rk, do you intend to abstain, or vote against?

Curiously, the one thing that doesn't concern me is NM's salary. I don't consider him to be over-paid, unlike the many useless directors who inhabit the large number of lifestyle companies which litter the market. I also think he probably works his butt off.

Q, I really didn't think I needed to mention them. A bit of a foregone conclusion don't you think? Although it would be bloody funny if one of them voted against.
Why would NCM be protected by voting for the resolutions?

TBTT, my guess is the following:
CGP -against everything (obvs)
BR - as an institution, they'll do what institutions normally do, either vote with the board or, at worse, abstain.
NCM - against everything.
BHP - against resolutions 11 onwards, and possibly more.

I can't recall seeing too many of these of announcements. It really does read as if they're worried that some of the resolutions will be defeated.

Q, why is their need for more cash unrelated to the general situation with us? The two are inextricably linked.

"Can't believe the Cornerstone story is still being debated" Erm? And yet last evening you did just that.

The conundrum CGP faced was arguing that SOLG was worth far more than the offer implied, but simultaneously wanting the SOLG price to be lower so that their shareholders would get a bigger splice of the pie.
Despite this contradiction and the rest of their flimsy defence, they won the argument hands down, and I for one am extremely grateful they did - it was a lousy deal for us SOLG holders.

The thought of the Takeover Code prompted me to have a look at the copy I still have from my days as a corporate financier in the City in the '80s. I was issued with the First Edition in 1985 and it contained less than 100 pages (not A4, either). Todays version must be closer to 300. I'm not convinced we are better off for having this proliferation of rules. It's become a bit like the UK tax code.

rcgl, for a large buyer (which it would be), the process would be a doddle. CGP is not some sprawling conglomerate and is, in reality, a tiny business. But I'm sure the preferred route would be a simple purchase of their shareholding in us and, if possible, the ENSA stake.

Copper, I don't know if it's still the case, but in the past a company couldn't make another hostile move for 12 months after the lapse of the initial approach. This didn't apply for a agreed deal.

opulentia, why would their placing have any effect on the timing of the PFS?

The reason for the Placing is pretty obvious; to give them sufficient headroom in order to avoid having to sell any more SOLG shares. They are attempting to buy themselves time. I wonder if Irwin will subscribe?