Member Info for addicknt

Of course. I forgot.

According to the last company presentation, CGP own 10.03% of SOLG.

If anyone is labouring under the misapprehension that last week's move was of little significance, they should think again.
It was the start of a significant period of corporate activity...in my opinion, of course. No one is going to walk away from this and my guess is that many potential bidders are trying to work out their strategies.

RS5, funnily enough my father, who fought in WW2, said that the Canadians were by far the best soldiers he fought alongside. He rated the Australians, but said they didn't have the same discipline as the Canadians. However, both were ferocious and formidable.
Obviously, in this instance, I know where my preference lies.

jerry, we would be buying the shares in CGP, so the shares held by CGP in SOLG would still exist and would be owned by SOLG.
My question was; what happens to the SOLG shares held by CGP? Will they be cancelled (in the same way a share buy-back operates), if not, what happens to them? I also assume as part of the synergies, we would liquidate CGP and hive the assets up into SOLG. It's at this point my question becomes relevant.

SH, "it dawned on me that this offer is not what it seems"...took your time, didn't you?

agreed, Sean.
What happens if we are successful?
We would own the corporate entity which in turn owns the shares in SOLG. Would we collapse the entity and cancel the shares, in other words is this a form of share buy-back? If the shares aren't cancelled, are they held in treasury?
If we leave the entity in tact, the process in a sale would be that the proceeds would flow first to Cornerstone and would then be divi'd-up into SOLG. A buyer would then be buying SOLG with the cash from the proceeds and would have to pay pound-for-pound . This strikes me as very messy and quite probably tax inefficient.
So, what is the intention?

whether our board will give permission for either Newcrest or BHP to buy the Cornerstone shareholding?
The probably regard Newcrest as being the 'friendlier' of the two, but it seems reasonable to assume they'd rather have one of them take up the holding than an outsider with obvious hostile intentions.

I wonder why they dislike NM so much?

as I said, we have different approaches. I've been investing for far too long to even attempt to out-play the market by relying upon charts. The only way small retail investors can make a proper return is to base their investment decision upon the fundamentals and to stick with it until those fundamentals change. Trying to second guess the market rarely works and I've come across far too many casualties who have.
Where you are right is when you say the RNS threw a hand grenade into the mix. It most certainly has and it's only the opening gambit in what will be a fascinating process.

Strider, you know you're wrong; it's all a raging disaster and if only you'd listened, you could have made at least 5 quid today.

well, as you know, we haven't very different opinions as to the usefulness of charts and there's zero point in rehashing them. Although I remain utterly baffled as to why you're getting excited about such trivial movements in the share price.
Curiously, you have posted some good stuff over on the BCN page and I don't recall you banging-on about charts. Do you adopt a different approach with that share?

and of course, the charts knew we'd make this bid, didn't they?
What on earth is the point of trading when the share is moving in such a narrow band? 1% here, 2% there, which after costs and the margin, is utterly meaningless. Still, each to their own.

1. he stated with absolute clarity that their stake is for sale.
2. he made a highly unusual statement about BHP and the fact that the standstill agreement will "leave them on the sidelines as Cornerstone pursues other value enhancing alternatives". It is very rare that one company talks about another's situation, particularly when the other happens to be the worlds biggest miner and you are a two-bit outfit in Woonsocket, Saskathewan.
I rather suspect BHP will be trying to find a way around this.
This is very much game on and I rather suspect the market hasn't got it yet.

Pinot, it's the accompanying statement from the chairman that is hugely revealing.
This move has opened a fascinating can of worms.

graking, you are right, but I don't believe BCN fits that description.

NM would have known without any equivocation that this would be rejected.
There is definitely an ulterior motive at work here.

I can't see any significant downside from our point of view, but given the obvious animosity between the two boards, I can't see them agreeing to it. Sure, they get access to our other concessions, but their board will be out on it's ear and I don't see those particular turkeys voting for Christmas.
The way I see this deal is that it has nothing to do with the 'synergies', 'cost savings' etc; it's all about us being in a better place in the event of a bid.
Think about it, why do we want to give away a percentage of our other assets? It doesn't make any sense unless it's seen in the context of defensive positioning.
NM knows he has a very unstable and significant shareholder on the register and he wants that particular risk removed.

Does anyone on here with experience of working in a mining company, know why it takes so long to move from PEA, via PFS to BFS?
I know they are detailed documents, but the time required seems quite out of proportion to what is eventually produced. And why is a PFS needed? Why not simply go to BFS?
It took six years to write War and Peace, a BFS seems almost to take as long.

zoros, it's a share swap.