Member Info for addicknt

Sorry, your post wasn't clear...and there are plenty of people who don't know what it stands for.
Thanks for posting the Hannam report...hugely encouraging.

My other main resource holding is BCN. It's BFS reported an IRR of 25%. The similarity is that they completed their BFS based upon a limited amount of their licensed areas; in the same way that the PEA here will only relate to a part of the overall resource base (I believe)
BCN have struggled with financing (so far), but that is for different reasons and i anticipate them overcoming the problem in due course.
Anyway, the point Liberum were making is that the IRR here will comfortably exceed the threshold required to appeal to acquirers...but I think we knew that already, didn't we?

Strider, those are figures much more in line with my thinking.

schlemiel, IRR stands for Internal Rate of Return. When an acquirer is looking at a project such as this, it will have a target IRR, which in turn, will be dictated by what they pay for the resource as a percentage of its overall NAV. I was interested to note that Liberum are predicating their assumption upon such a low IRR.

RR1, it may well be, but so what? It's been said a million times, but what happens here on a day-to-day basis is supremely irrelevant. We, and more importantly, the mining world, knows exactly what we're sitting on.

First of all, and to repeat myself, PS has stated he intends to use project finance as far as is possible; ergo less dilution.
But as to the overall question of dilution; yes, I am happy. This company will go nowhere without it. I guess you understand that?

"...exceeding the generally held requirement for Tier 1 status"

well, that caught me by surprise. What a great start to the day!
Read and enjoy!

Newboy, yes, but we already knew that, didn't we?
Frankly, I'd be very happy to be diluted knowing that we had the project funded. And if PS gets his way, he will minimise dilution by gaining project finance for Sonora.

Or put it another way..."up to 372% of the company's issued share capital"

the only thing to note is Resolution 10 which increases the number of shares the company can allot in respect of funding for the project from 365m to 500m. A fair indication that they don't anticipate being able to issue new shares at anything like the old values.

Thanks for posting, Kluck. A bit of cheer in these gloomy days.

All good points, although I remain convinced a bidder would want to the whole thing in order to benefit from the upside of the other concessions.

I think the answer to my question is as follows: control of the company can be achieved by gaining a simple majority i.e in excess of 50%. The compulsory purchase issue is settled when 90% acceptances of an offer has been achieved.
So, how does that impact a potential bidder's approach to our situation?
Let's say RTZ decide they want to buy the company. They may make such a large offer that NM, Blackrock and Cornerstone think it's worth accepting. Ordinary shareholders also agree. However, Newcrest and BHP don't agree to sell and cannot, under the Code, be forced to do so. How does this impact the thinking of a non-shareholder potential bidder? Sure, they could get control of the company, but they would then have to contend with having both NC and BHP as minority shareholders with representatives sitting on the board (until such time as they voted to remove them; which would undoubtedly lead to a legal challenge)
Personally, I cannot see BHP or NC willing to accept an offer from anyone else, no matter how much was on the table. They are simply not here for a quick 100/200/300% return. So, will this structure deter any other bidder? Are we, in effect, wholly reliant upon NC and BHP taking their gloves off and getting into a bidding war?
Thoughts?

And of course, as soon as one of the others makes a move, BHP is free to act.
Given the various shareholding blocks, a takeover is not straightforward. For example, if RTZ launched a bid, what are the chances of them persuading Newcrest or BHP to sell? Zero. So it then becomes a battle of price only.
Does anyone know what the articles say about at what percentage a takeover here can be declared unconditional and then trigger the compulsory purchase clause? 51%...60%...75%. I would look but don't have time.

Dibs, the £22m to which you refer consists largely of goodwill, IP, software and not fully costing development costs to the p&l. I'm afraid to say that these are not positive signs. Take those out, and the balance sheet looks an awful lot worse.

If you think that was an insult, you have a very thin skin.
I don't know how long you've been an investor, but you're demonstrating all the signs of being a very nervous one, and if that's the case, perhaps a share such as this isn't for you.
Btw, I never filter anyone.

I hesitate to say this Schlemiel, but you are really beginning to sound a bit daft.
I happen to agree with your overall point of sale before production, but I'd suggest you stop fretting about short term movements and keep your eyes firmly on what this company is sitting on.

Another one today. Second time lucky?

I shall be voting against Resolutions 7-13.