Member Info for addicknt

Smickster, I'm inclined to agree with TBT's analysis.

This situation reminds me of something I was involved in the 1980s.
At the time I worked in the corporate finance department of a merchant bank. One of my clients received a hostile approach and a very pompous and arrogant man at Lazards, who were acting for the bidder, demanded my presence.
He proceeded to tell me my client had no chance. Sadly for him he hadn't done his arithmetic. We already had support from over 60 % of shareholders and it was obvious the bid was doomed. His bubble of pomposity burst and he spent the next 10 minutes grovelling. It was the easiest defence I was ever involved with.
The difference here is that NM knows they have over 50% support. This begs the question; what the hell is he doing?

Mr Sangha is correct, although the difference between him and I is that he says 20 years; I'm able to say 40 years.

Oh, as soon as I post, they all reappear!

this web site is up to it's normal tricks. Every post from today seems to have disappeared.

Jerry, definitely time to buy some more...you know it makes sense! Having waited to see what the market would make of the announcement, I decided to add another 100 k this morning.

BBG, you make an interesting point about Citi. As far as I could see, they are not involved in this bid and are not named as an advisor. (I admit, I may have missed it)
I'm assuming they've only been retained for the Big Event.

Jerry, you make a fair point, although I could probably find some examples if I trawled back far enough. The circumstances when it has happened are deals that were related to assets, not profitability. In certain cases the market simply fails to understand an asset base - I seem to recall various property deals in the '80s where this happened.
I would argue SOLG fits this pattern, although I agree 500% may be a stretch!

Good morning, Quady.
I wouldn't say you were in the minority - I've always felt this board is roughly 50:50 split on the issue.
But I would ask, why do you feel Cornerstone will agree to the deal? They've been absolutely clear about this and having a majority of their shareholders in support means they will simply stick two fingers up to NM. And the fact there is no love lost between the two parties makes NM's task even harder. Perhaps if he'd been a little less bombastic and sought to gain friends rather than alienating people, he'd have a better chance.

Cookie, yes, they have. A preliminary statement was issued and don't forget they have previously said they're not interested.

BNC, the only alignment I have is with my bank balance.
Jerry, spot on.

Morning, BNC. I'm not entirely sure I understood your point, but I think you're saying that NM is doing this in order to make SOLG more saleable?
If I've got that right, I agree it may make some sense. However, if BHP (or any other bidder) wants to have a pop at SOLG, it will come to an arrangement with Cornerstone which would involve a commitment from both parties that Cornerstone would support a bid and, in return, would drop all rights attached to the ENSA arrangement, therefore achieving the clean break you refer to.

TBTT, agreed.

Richy, your point about Cornerstones contribution is very important and begs the question; given that ownership of their shares comes with significant liabilities, why would anyone, other than SOLG, want to buy them? And why would NM want to buy them knowing full well that if he left them alone, over time, their situation would become completely unsustainable.
For me, the answer is obvious. The only reason for anyone to buy Cornerstone is to use their holding as a steeping stone for a bid for SOLG, and NM knows it. In fact, a potential bidder wouldn't have to buy the corporate entity of Cornerstone, they could simply come to an arrangement of getting them to commit to supporting a bid for SOLG - which would obviously be the preferred route.
To me, this bid is an act of desperation by NM. He knows full well what's going to happen and he also knows if either BHP or New get a commitment from Cornerstone to support a bid for SOLG, then's it's game over.

is that our board knows the bid is going to fail - how could they think otherwise? Therefore the question is; why have they pursued it? Why incur the cost? Do we really need this distraction when there's so much else to do?
Cornerstone have made their own intentions perfectly clear - their shares are for sale, but not to SOLG. They are also pretty clear as to who they think the buyers will be.
I continue to feel this is a monumental waste of time and money.
Mind you, if this does motivate others to enter the fray, I'm all for it.

Huraah...they've found a translator!
Still think it's a crap idea though.

"there wouldn't have been a negotiation", this statement makes it quite clear you've never actually been involved in a situation like this.
Anyway, we've both stated our positions and the fact remains that Newcrest have the information they need to direct their future actions - as will be revealed in due course.

theiceberg, I'm sorry to labour this point but your understanding is wrong. Read the last paragraph of Red's post. The New crest investment is covered by an investment agreement.

Think about it logically: do you honestly believe Newcrest would have negotiated a position on the board if they were not able to receive any information about what goes on around the boardroom table from their own nominee? What would be the point of having a nominee? Do you honestly think their own employee would not tell them?
As I've said previously, they would not be able to act on this information as they would be classified as insiders which, as I believe you work in an investment bank, you would surely know. This is the reason they withdrew their nominee and it's also the reason BHP have never taken up their option to have one.
They are now free of the restrictions - or rather will be in due course ( I suspect there will be a cooling off period.)
I'm not sure why you are unwilling to accept the position - perhaps it doesn't fit the narrative of NM being a genius. In any event, it's now history. Newcrest are in possession of a great deal of information, both technical and corporate and, in due course, they are bound to make use of it.

iceberg, of course he could discuss with it his bosses at Newcrest. They would have been bound by the confidentiality clauses in the original investment agreement. Why else do you think they wanted someone on the board? The fun of it?
I'm really sorry, but you are very wrong about all of this.
Anyway, the point is he's now off the board. The information Newcrest hold will be getting out of date but, crucially, they will know all they need to know in order to prepare themselves for whatever comes next.
By the way, love the Barrick rumour! That'll put he cat amongst the pigeons.

iceberg, your first sentence is correct in as much as a directors overriding duty is the fiduciary one. Information cannot be withheld without the person withholding it being in breach of those duties. Access to all information is a basic principle of being a company director. As for the Newcrest guy, he would have had exactly the same rights as any director.