Member Info for addicknt

but as I understand it GDXJ are now in the position of having to purchase 121m shares in the market. Obviously, this implies the market makers have to provide that liquidity and I suppose there are two ways of doing so: dropping the price to scare folk into selling sufficient stock or, raising the price to achieve the same end.
Is this the general understanding? And if so, which route do people think is the most likely? Or is it a combination of both?
We know they have to ensure sufficient stock is available, how they achieve that is going to be fascinating. I suppose if Mr Beetham was still holding, he could simply have sold them the lot.

zoros, to be fair to Quady he has been consistent in recent weeks in saying that he believes there 'could' be a bid. However, you don't have to delve too far back to a time when he maintained there would never be a bid. He then invented the mythical concept of 'full value' to offer an explanation of why a bid would never happen - or might happen, but would never succeed.
Apparently, everything hangs on 'full value', despite the fact no such thing exists.

zoros, I'm not so sure about that. The one about going to production is a cracker.

Quady, you have been highly critical of a couple of people this morning for indulging in 'conspiracy theories' and in the very next breath you do exactly the same.
The fact is, virtually everything posted on this board - and I include my posts in this, is a theory. We all do it and absent any real news (I'm excluding todays announcement) there is nothing else to go on. If we didn't hypothesise there wouldn't be any posts on this bb at all.
Carry on guessing folks, it's all good fun.

Jerry, it doesn't appear to have had much effect, does it?
Still, it's much better to have the cash than the alternative.

Does anyone know if there's a penalty clause attached to the agreement? Specifically, would a buyer have to pay a price for dropping the arrangement? In other words, is there a small poison pill clause and if so, how much is it?

CGP aren't going to consider any offers until BHP are free to act. Why anyone finds this difficult to understand is a complete mystery.

Stevie, I wish I did have one! Everything I look at has considerable risks, with the consequence I'm still sitting on too much cash. Perhaps one possibility is SDRY. I like the recovery story, although I haven't yet taken the plunge.

stevie, a few of us did bang the GGP drum on here a while back and were politely, and correctly, told not to ramp other shares on this page.
However, I will say that some of my best bets have been a result of folk drawing attention to a share on unrelated pages - although not GGP, where I invested because a long time ago I knew the chairman. And if I see him again I'll buy him several beers.

earthling, SOLG. It will happen...eventually!

Jet, absolutely right.

I thought my observation would provoke a few comments.
The simple fact is, he paid all taxes that were due and, during his lifetime, that figured amounted to millions. He did not break the law. Why should he pay more than was required?
It seems to me some people simply cannot abide the thought of others hanging on to their wealth, despite the fact they'll never, ever contribute anything like the same amount to the country.

schlemiel, it's impossible to see how CGP's claim could be wrong. It's a self-evident truth that NM will be sitting on information. He's a director of the company and, by definition, he will know everything that's going on. The key question is whether it should be in the public domain. He clearly thinks it shouldn't and, provided he's not breaking the law, I agree with him.
He needs to keep his powder dry for the coming battles.

An old friend of mine, who sadly died last year, was the most successful investor I've ever met. He was not an educated man, nor was he particularly bright, but he did have the good fortune to inherit £90m in the early'70s.
He backed Buffet at an early stage, it formed the largest percentage of his portfolio and he never sold. Quite literally, he was sitting on a profit in the hundreds of millions. When I asked him why he didn't sell his response was always the same; "where else would I put my money?"
Now, I'm most certainly not equating us with Buffet, but as it stands right now I keep asking myself the same question; where else would I put the cash? And I'm struggling to find a sensible answer.
By the way, my friend spent years planning his tax affairs and when he died the inheritance tax bill was just £70,000.

The GGP vs SOLG debate raged a few weeks ago and the only sensible position was to hold both - which all clever folk do.
In all seriousness, GGP is beginning to get a bit scary and I don't hold anywhere near the number that Jerry does. I understand he's just placed an order for a new Lear jet.

Quady, over the past few months I've been trying to understand why you think the way you do. Your position is heartfelt and genuine and I understand why you'd like this to go to production.
But it has become clear that your reasoning is flawed and it is so because you've never run a company. You've never been involved in corporate strategy or finance and have no hands-on experience of M&A and certainly not at scale. And dare I say it, it shows.
I'm not being rude here - there's no reason why you should have done any of these things - your expertise is IT after all. But your lack of experience is showing.
Anyway, you've won - I give up! This debate has gone on far too long and I simply can't be bothered to carry on with it. Victory is yours! Right up until the point I'm proved correct.

No disrespect Quady, but I know what the concept of proof is and to attempt to rely on it to support your untenable argument is pretty weak. You know you're wrong, but wont admit it.
CGP? Any answer?

Quady, we can't prove they have happened and you can't prove they haven't. In other words, your evidence argument is unprovable one way or another, ergo, not worth labouring the point.
I'm sure you get the point about CGP? Or do you think I'm wrong on that as well?

Quady, the CGP situation is straightforward: why would they sell to anyone right now when the most obvious buyer still has its hands tied behind its back? Answer? They wouldn't.
They'll sit and wait until BHP are free to pick up the phone.
As for your "evidence" point, the fact is BHP may well have already had talks with NM ,indeed, it would be surprising if they hadn't. But they wouldn't tell us, would they. In other words, your evidence argument cuts both ways - you can't prove that talks haven't happened.
If I were you, I wouldn't pin my hopes on either of these arguments.

Quady, I think one thing we can agree upon is that today's price movement is most welcome. Let's hope it's sustainable.