Member Info for BIGBangs

Hi Elly, anything to be considered at the AGM must be officially notified to shareholders 15 days (might be more) before the meeting - it is not possible for them to try and high jack the meeting.

Good link dimi - I found the following particularly relevant and in my view sums up FRES:-

‘I think the strength of my analysis here is that it is underpinned by a strong fundamental case for why silver is not likely to rise above an annual average of $17 per oz. and be sustained above that level until we get a meaningful broader shift in inflation expectations. Until that arrives, investors are simply overpaying for Fresnillo. The stock is pricing at a higher silver price. Nevertheless, Fresnillo is the strongest silver producer on the planet, so it will likely remain overvalued as investors continue to cling to it for leveraged silver exposure and an inflation hedge.’

I’m keen to find a hedge and although FRES is solid it just doesn’t make sense while silver remains so unloved and disconnected from gold at under $15. I’ll keep watching though.

Someone - dimi, Pat, Pistachio, Franky, Super - might also care to point out the fairly massive point that I now realise I missed; Barrick originally floated off 36% of their original holding at £5.75 per share to now offer to buy them back at £1.47 does not reflect well on them and would influence the value of them as a partner for any spin off they may want to consider in the future.

Enough from me for today, things to do.

Super you do of course realise that 1.5 ACA shares for a Barrick shares is actually a better offer than the 2:1 I suggest in any event it is a long way from the 6:1 they are currently offering.

Super I have no worries about your eloquence, please consider making your points directly to Barrick - it can do no harm.

Thank you VV, like you, I suspect, once I had sent it off I thought of other things I wish I had added. In particular that it feels like Barrick are doing a deal at our expense rather than continuing to press for a full and fair settlement for All shareholders. They are seizing an opportunity for them to walk away the winner. We have to be valued post resolution not on a depressed, manipulated SP based on the last few weeks.

Super I was going to include a comment about the relief that Barrick might enjoy from their insurers but I did not feel confident enough how that might work - perhaps you could consider a missive that incorporated you views especially the insurance angle?

Continued:-

The Government of Tanzania have refused to negotiate with ACA, who have been suffering the full cost of the negotiations, for the last 2 years and an interim minister of mining Mr Abbasi has recently confirmed this and speculated that he does not want ACA involved in the final agreement, nothing has changed. Mr Abbasi does not reflect that the operation of ACA it’s current and previous Board is effectively controlled by Barrick but instead heaps his contempt on the legal entity that is ACA. I have immense respect for Mr Bristow and his negotiating skills are legendary. I am confident that if he wanted to he could easily negotiate a fair settlement that incorporated agreement that on resolution Barrick would make an offer for the outstanding shares in ACA effectively removing them from the table without the risk of an ongoing dispute. I also note with interest that it is not Mr Magufuli himself who has been commenting. I also felt that part of the role that we had every right to expect from the Barrick negotiators was to smooth the waters between ACA and GoT. I also find it hard to accept that without a resolution, in the bag, that Barrick would be prepared to take on a potential $190 billion tax liability within their accounts and are therefore entirely confident of resolution.

The offer that Barrick propose is derisory, loading all of the risk, cost and loss against the minority shareholders and in my view totally opportunistic and does not reflect the current or future value of ACA - being a member of the much larger Barrick shareholder group substantially diminishes any opportunity for us to every see fair value for our ACA holding.

I could point to Barrick’s own book value but that does not take into account the settlement of the dispute, the true value of ACA’s gold production once Buly is back online or the many years of future and hopefully, following a negotiated settlement with GoT, uninterrupted future production.

The value of the £ has moved massively in your favour, an offer of 2:1 is entirely fair. If for your own reasons Barrick would not feel it fair to offer ACA a deal similar to this then you could offer current ACA shareholders a future special dividend or attach warrants to the offer allowing long suffering, loyal investors the opportunity to achieve full value for their investment once the resolution is finally documented with GoT.

Without a fair offer I can not foresee any reason for the minority shareholders to accept the Barrick proposal, indeed many of us will support any and every possible action to prevent you from forcing it through - none of us want this.

I apologise for the length of my email, I could go on but I hope you will be able to pass my concerns, which I believe are reflective of the majority, to the Board.

Thank you.

Dear Mr. Nicoski

I am an ACA shareholder with over 250,000 shares in the company. I did not make my first purchase until after the dispute with Tanzania has been announced, buying some 20,000shares at that time. Since then I have increased by holding following news that Mr. Thornton has held negotiations with Mr. Magufuli and that a outline agreement had been reached. I increased again when we were advised that a resolution would be in place by June 18, although of course that deadline would not be met. I purchased still more when Mr. Thornton commented that it was almost 100% certain that ACA would be sold to a Chinese company. I added again on the announcement concerning the Rangold Resources acquisition and I was enthusiastic that Mr, Bristow would lead Barrick forward. I continued to add to my holding on various comments from Mr. Bristow that he acknowledged massive value had been lost within ACA and he and his team were working to restore that value. I outline my purchase decision process so that you can see it was very much driven by news released or available to the market. I have been extremely active on discussion boards posting as BIGBangs and although I do not expect you to read back over my musings, the common thread is that a deal would be agreed that we had the best people negotiating on our behalf that ACA were achieving excellent results given the circumstances in which they operate and that the value of ACA would be recognised when the dispute was settled. Throughout I have speculated that Barrick were a truly excellent company that would never try and take advantage of the situation. I mused that Barrick would agree a deal on our behalf and that they would announce this coupled with an offer of shares within Barrick and that fair value would be in the region of 2 ACA shares for each Barrick share. I was extremely positive about becoming a long term shareholder of Barrick to enjoy along with them the benefits of the new structure and philosophy going forward.

I was shocked and disappointed by Mr Bristow’s recent announcement and felt nothing less that betrayed by the offer.

Barrick were, I understood, negotiating settlement on behalf of ACA not to feather their own nest. I do not believe anyone gives any credibility to the Government of Tanzania’s claims surrounding the level of misreporting that they claim has been rife from ACA and of course previously Barrick Gold going back years and we were absolutely correct to rebuff their accusations and had no choice but in addition to entering into a constructive dialogue, protect our rights via the Court of International Arbitration, always hoping that a fair resolution would be reached before we asked the court to give us their verdict. Nothing has changed.

Hang on I screwed that up - I will just post letter in full. Next post.

I have sent something off but I am guessing that MB is now being railed in (a little) but I feel better for making a few points anyway. Quite long so may go run over a couple of boxes. No one will doubt how enthusiastic I have been about John Thornton, Mark Bristow or Barrick in my previous posts and that is why I feel so utterly betrayed now.

Dear Mr. Nicoski

I am an ACA shareholder with over 250,000 shares in the company. I did not make my first purchase until after the dispute with Tanzania has been announced, buying some 20,000shares at that time. Since then I have increased by holding following news that Mr. Thornton has held negotiations with Mr. Magufuli and that a outline agreement had been reached. I increased again when we were advised that a resolution would be in place by June 18, although of course that deadline would not be met. I purchased still more when Mr. Thornton commented that it was almost 100% certain that ACA would be sold to a Chinese company. I added again on the announcement concerning the Rangold Resources acquisition and I was enthusiastic that Mr, Bristow would lead Barrick forward. I continued to add to my holding on various comments from Mr. Bristow that he acknowledged massive value had been lost within ACA and he and his team were working to restore that value. I outline my purchase decision process so that you can see it was very much driven by news released or available to the market. I have been extremely active on discussion boards posting as BIGBangs and although I do not expect you to read back over my musings, the common thread is that a deal would be agreed that we had the best people negotiating on our behalf that ACA were achieving excellent results given the circumstances in which they operate and that the value of ACA would be recognised when the dispute was settled. Throughout I have speculated that Barrick were a truly excellent company that would never try and take advantage of the situation. I mused that Barrick would agree a deal on our behalf and that they would announce this coupled with an offer of shares within Barrick and that fair value would be in the region of 2 ACA shares for each Barrick share. I was extremely positive about becoming a long term shareholder of Barrick to enjoy along with them the benefits of the new structure and philosophy going forward.

Dear Mr. Nicoski

I am an ACA shareholder with over 250,000 shares in the company. I did not make my first purchase until after the dispute with Tanzania has been announced, buying some 20,000shares at that time. Since then I have increased by holding following news that Mr. Thornton has held negotiations with Mr. Magufuli and that a outline agreement had been reached. I increased again when we were advised that a resolution would be in place by June 18, although of course that deadline would not be met. I purchased still more when Mr. Thornton commented that it was almost 100% certain that ACA would be sold to a Chinese com

Happy to give it a go VV - I will work on drafting something up today - still pretty shocked that he would take the risk of talking to individual shareholders but I am sure MB knows what he is doing.

Wow VV, just spent 20mins reading through Yahoo Finance on Barrick - no constructive comment just a load of self serving garbage- not in the least useful to any investor. Made me realise just how good this site is. Don’t think I will bother with that again. Does anyone genuine (yourself excepted) actually ever post anything of any value? LSE should consider business opportunity of setting something up over there - and we always convince ourselves that the US are ahead of the curve - not with discussion boards!

Hi VV, I am sure that we all appreciate your efforts on our behalf and that you take the time to update us. I feel the prospect of the GoT nationalising the mines is remote and would mark the end for them as far as international investment goes which is something I believe they are actively seeking - but of course it should be considered as a possibility, however unlikely. I feel that Barrick’s book value would be the absolute minimum worthy of proper consideration, although as you know it is nothing more than a book entry and does not reflect the true value of ACA post deal. Barrick could make an offer based on their book and offer us a dividend of £1 per share or so as a premium once the dispute is fully resolved or better still a fair full and final offer now. I think Barrick are being opportunistic- a possibility that I had previously dismissed as unthinkable. Only a fair offer now or some form of additional payment will get the institutional investors onside otherwise I hope we use the pushmepullyou clause and try and resolve the dispute with the GoT either ourselves or via our new owners - I don’t think we would be any worse off and the court of International Arbitration may well have resolved the case in our favour which can only help us achieve a negotiated settlement. Thank again.

Hi Super, I can’t really see what difference it makes to the situation under what name or jurisdiction Barrick own the 64%, I don’t believe anyone doubts that they control them but what we maintain is that they cannot vote even a single share on this proposed acquisition. If that position is upheld then I cannot foresee anything other than a much better offer will be accepted. We have outlined where we see more value and how this can be released. Let’s hope that Barrick and GoT are working on a form of words that gets resolution to the dispute, allows ACA to achieve its full Gold production from all of its mines and that FULL & FAIR value can be offered to the minority shareholders. If they achieve that Barrick can swallow up other (our) shares, delist ACA (GoT save face and never have to deal with the entity that was ACA again) then develop or sell off the mines to the Chinese.

We do not need to sell - the Barrick shares will be the best route to value, we just want more of them than we have been offered.

I am not surprised that we have had no updates from our BoD - they are disputing Barrick’s claim that they can vote on this deal and I would imagine speaking with the Institutional investors to establish what offer we might accept and potentially even speaking with other interested parties (Newmont/ Chinese etc) together with our financial advisers to see what funds might be available should Barrick make a formal offer that we can counter with a push me pull you clause - time is on our side.

Although I can see you thought process dimi (3:1) that would be the minimum remotely justifiable figure but I am not happy to dismiss the value of Buly which would come back on line as soon as the dispute is settled - let alone the forward earnings. Tigers point on the 6 month rule is valid (although at the moment this is just an indicative offer not a formal one) and I do not think Barrick would want to wait another 6 months but if they do then so be it - unless a much better offer is on the table or one comes from elsewhere we should wait.

The GoT may well have gone into panic mode re the International Arbitration which ACA have told us reaches court in a couple of months. I doubt GoT will seize our assets - it would be the end for them but I also thought Barrick would deal with us honourably - in fact it was the cornerstone of my investment decisions since the start.

What has really changed? GoT have been refusing to deal with ACA throughout, this is not new and changes nothing, we thought Barrick were handling discussions on our behalf, on our dime, not that they were trying to feather their own nest.

Thank goodness Pat is not negotiating for us - if we are bought out in anticipation of a deal then Tigers asset value must be the minimum and we have every right to expect the considerably higher fair value. We are being offered 6:1 anything less than 3:1 doesn’t fly for me and that is far from our real value.”

Dimi - if Barrick have agreement with GoT as to how they will proceed - based on JT’s deal. They can value us with the dispute resolved fully exporting the concentrate and with Buly at full production - Barrick can then offer us the price that reflects this but make the offer subject to us accepting their offer. Barrick get the shares - GoT never have to deal with ACA again and we as minority shareholders get full value for our shares - everyone is happy.

Thanks VV I will look into the Yahoo options.

Although probably preferable to be otherwise it is not uncommon for the BoD not to be based on site or in country for places such as Tanzania or Africa generally. Aca have a structured management and the BoD will spend most of their time dealing with regulators and institutional investors. I accept that their safety and freedom could be held to ransom in country - so their location does not cause me any concern. If you get the opportunity I would press you to ask MB why, if a deal is on the table for Barrick and GoT to settle the dispute along the lines of that negotiated by JT, that the offer cannot be put to minority shareholders which would therefore obviously value ACA on its full asset and production value presumably not dissimilar to the value that would have been determined pre dispute ie akin to the 2016 accounts (yes taking into account disbursements to GoT) and be subject to shareholder approval of a buyout by Barrick at this enhanced and fair SP. Good luck, enjoy Rome.

VV, would you let us have web site addresses for US stock notice boards - is there an equivalent London South East chat board? Might be useful for some of us to register and make our presence felt.

Well VV, I am sure I really don’t know what to make of that. Great letter. MB calling you direct is unusual but not without precedent. MB’s comments are credible but they do not alter the self evident truths within your letter. The value of ACA is what it is, your previous calculations do not become any less correct because the GoT have decided to suddenly decide that despite negotiating for 2 years they now feel that regardless in the destruction of ACA they will include a condition that in itself is pointless. If GoT have fallen out so badly with the new board appointed by Barrick (and indeed the old board also appointed by Barrick) then agreeing a deal to settle the dispute subject to Barrick taking over the assets and delisting ACA would be simple and not value destroying for the minority shareholders. MB is no fool, he is well known for his negotiating skills so if he wanted to avoid the unfairness of this situation and the controversy surrounding the offer and circus that is International Arbitration, he could do it.

I am also not forgetting that JT himself suggested that it was almost certain that ACA will be sold to the Chinese, where are they in all this.

Barrick’s reputation and that of the GoT rests on how this is resolved, I am not selling and will support any action for a fair deal based upon ACA’s true value post resolution with GoT.