Member Info for addicknt

KB, I do not believe either Fidelity or Bank of Singapore are shareholders in their own right. The fact there hasn't been any RNS's confirming the situation, which of course is a legal requirement, combined with the fact we haven't been shouting about this from the rooftop, which we most certainly would, reinforces my opinion.
It is an illusion to imagine there's a block of institutional shareholders out there and even if there were, it's a double illusion to imagine that somehow they would automatically back NM.
The only institution we can be certain of is Black Rock - and even they reduced their position not that long ago.

when you say you're "running free" - what exactly are you running free with? To all intents and purposes, the company has disappeared. No one knows anything about it; who's in charge, what the strategy is, what it owns, etc, etc.
You may be "running free", but seemingly you own the square root of f-all.
The truth is, you've been had.

KB, are you certain they are not nominee holders? If they were holding in their own right, why no RNS?

Quady, who are these institutional investors you refer to? There is only one; Black Rock.

Would that be the English/French dictionary, Jerry? The company now has a well-thumbed copy on the bookshelf.

bit of an unexplained ruck developing at Prim. I wonder what's going on?

Grim, I fear you'll be asleep for a very long time.

redknight, you pose the question about statements issued by companies in publicly released documents and whether they have to be verifiable; you are correct.
In my day as a corporate financier, whenever you were preparing a document, contained within the timetable prior to its release, would be a session described as the "Verification meeting". It came towards the end of the timetable and was one of the most important meetings. Everyone involved in the process would attend - management, lawyers, advisors, brokers, pr people etc. You would go through the document line-by-line and physical evidence would have to be produced to prove the statement. These were ticked-off and held within a verification file for inspection by the authorities if necessary.Matters of opinion had to be described as such and even then, there had to be some degree of evidence supporting the assertion.
It's been quite a while since I attended one of these meetings (they were balls-achingly dull), but I cannot imagine they are no longer required. In fact, I would suggest they are likely to be even more rigorous nowadays.
So, yes, statements do have to be verifiable.

schlemiel, "corporate log-jam" is a very good and accurate way of describing the situation.
It's my belief NM did an amazing job of protecting the company and allowing it to progress to this stage by negotiating what is a highly unusual arrangement. It must have suited BHP at the time and I guess they were perfectly content to allow us to prove-up the resource.
Of course, in just a few weeks time all that changes and we will find ourselves in the same position as every other company with two dominant shareholders on the register i.e highly vulnerable.
As I've said before, I'm not anticipating any real action in October. I don't believe BHP would have risked breaking the terms of the agreement by talking to others during the lock-out period. It will take time for them to open discussions with NCM and CGP, amongst others, but my guess is that they will have a well-developed strategy for how they wish to proceed and it kick-off very soon.
Of course this is speculation, but I'd imagine their first port of call would be NCM. They will ask Biswas what his intentions are; whether he is willing to sell or, is interested in a jv. Simultaneously, they'll approach CGP in order to establish their selling price.
This is all classic corporate finance and there's virtually nothing NM can do to prevent it.

"quite" not "quiet"...obvs.

Quiet right, Miagi, But let's face it, Quady's faith is quite touching.

PaddyGall over on the GGP page has posted an interesting article about the declining level of gold reserves held by the majors and the trend for acquisitions (have a look)
I think sometimes we tend to overlook the gold assets we own.

Quady, at last! We agree on something!

Great minds, Jerry!

Richy, no question about that at all. Although I also suspect the issue may also have been raised in discussions with potential funders.

schlemiel, because the existing structure gave all the appearance of an Old Boys club that existed simply to rubber stamp NM's decisions , as was pointed out by CGP.
It is to be welcomed.

some welcome news on corporate governance.

rcgl2, quite right, but I rather fear you may have wasted your time. These folk will only believe what fits their narrative, which is that CGP is worthless to anyone other than SOLG.

KB, no emotion on my behalf, your statement was simply incorrect.

KB, nonsense. There are plenty of the mining majors who could swallow this and, in due course, will do so.