Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
I wasn't flagging it up at all, I was using it as a contextual point in connection to my theory there is more than 1 RTO option on the table and why there are delays in us hearing news.
Waking up this morning, a thought occurred to me over what could be causing delay. Think there are at least 2 RTO's being negotiated. We're assuming AG's intentions are the same as our own - that he wants to make a profit on his money invested in Bou. Don't believe they are. His interests lie with Coeur, not Bou. He was appointed as Exec Chair there to ensure they can raise the finance they need to fund getting minerals out of the Armenian ground. His 320k in Bou was his "buy-in" chip to getting chairman of Coeur - it's what he was bringing to the table there. He would rather make 50k profit going with Coeur RTO and fulfilling what he was put in place at Coeur to do (and making an even bigger return on his shareholding in Coeur from being a list company), than make 100k profit going with a non-coeur target. But the Bou board have a duty to act in shareholder's best interests, therein lies the conflict and perhaps source of delay. AG's trying to up Coeur's offer. The Bou's board pursuit of the best offer by playing the competition of each other takes up huge amounts of time, by continually reverting. If they had only 1 option on the table, it would be very straight forward and we'd have had our RTO by now.
@milli, if there is a crumb of truth in a sea of speculation your words as per "You don't buy so much of a cash shell to sit back and not have a say in its direction." are the former. I'm reading some posts as being confused as why Syms is in the picture. Why should it confuse? It makes perfect sense. Antos brought him in to give him leverage in persuading Couer to take up the RTO deal if there is a competitive healthcare RTO target on the table. Or alternatively it can be viewed Syms is his mitigation against the risk of his preferred option in Couer not going ahead. Either way, Antos is stacking the deck in his (and our) favour. If folks can't accept that, then accept that perhaps it doesn't make a jot of difference to who is running the show between Syms and Antos, they are strengthening each others hand in their co-existence and whomever ends up with the final RTO, they both still win (and so do we).
Does anyone happen to have a billionaire's direct mobile number to hand? Or email address he actually reads?
Must mean either RTO is off or on thus no need to expend time on your Q's - if RTO is a go, means we should expect news soon either way.
@JBmcr, I did warn everyone not to read in to alan syms wording, fingers were pointed at me accusing me of being of holding ulterior motive in typing the manner I did and being a secret deramper ... all I did was post an honest observation, not motives in play, it WAS very very slipperly worded and now we appear to be finding out why... was bould nothing but a nice corporate "london lunch" account for those involved at the gullible's expense...what do we know what £30,000 corp expenses were going on... genius
I studied at UoM, I am not professing to be a qualified solicitor nor have I completed an LPC, I have however read and analysed 100's of court judgements. From a stock markets point of view I am nowhere near you folks' levels of experience here in the share chat, you could probably tell from my number of posts thus far and perhaps their nature. This is my first venture in to the stock markets but mostly I thoroughly enjoy reading everyone's commentary on this stock regardless of the opinions held, they are thought provoking and I won't hold back from returning the favour, but also learning what I can from you folks in my early days...
I was tipped off about this stock some months ago and after some of my own research/analysis deciding to go in on it.
When you say larger investors not leaving, are you referring to Antos? Did someone not submit earlier that Antos couldn't move his shareholding either way otherwise he'd get done for insider trading? Welcome your thoughts on this as I agree, their shareholding means far more to me than the recent RNS report.
@twentyfour - the interpretation you're making is the one the majority are making as well as I (initially at least), before I felt it could be read differently. An "investment" is not always about generating a return, it may begin with that objective, but objectives can change. If the investment's prospects have begun to go bad, the objective could very easily change to loss mitigation on the investment. They could well be making "good progress" towards that objective. Do you think they would release that statement only to risk later being accused of misleading shareholders, without another interpretation to hand that they could fall back on if the need arose? From my years of legal study, I am well acquainted with the subtle nuances of interpretation of words/phrases and the breathtakingly audacious attempts of lawyers to exploit such nuances and squirm their way out of tight situations to achieve the result they desire. I'm cautiously optimistic but my guard is remaining well and truly up.
Not at all, I'm treating it as a very neutral statement that we cannot "actually" read in to either positively or negatively when you really study its wording...Yet one can be forgiven for reading such a way to infer an impression of positivity, I do not blame anyone for doing so. Yet waking up on saturday morning I couldn't help but feel something in my gut, be assured it was not the prior night's escapades, but one relating to said wording. A thought emerged to the forefront of my mind...did the draftsman intend to cast the illusion of positivity in his wordscraft? And if so, then why? You should look elsewhere for ulterior motives gents, because they are not here. I hope my feeling will gradually dissipate in to the ether over the course of this week, or totally evaporate with a successful RTO announcement... I'm already fully invested in this stock, minor SP movements are irrelevant for me as I've 100% committed to holding for multi bag gold.
I'm a ten bag believer but the wording is more vague for me, so devil's advocate and red rag to the bulls...
"The Group is in a good position to achieve its long term investment plans (to finally resolve and close this sh*thouse). Discussions are progressing towards reaching a decision soon on this (totally f**ked) investment and we will keep shareholders updated (when its too late)."
I'm not saying the above is true, of course I hope not, I'm just saying treat everything you read with caution...
25m buy there, start of things to come today surely
countingcards I'm one of those, and yes I believe in the ten bag here
Funny you raise this apple, I'd read that couple days ago myself after a bit of digging...have to say I was blown away. The amount of experience he has. This is a guy whose been killing it since the late 60's and has gone on to advise high level government funds...they don't deal with jobsworths, they choose carefully. There isn't anything he hasn't seen....in my humble opinion we are wise to place our faith in it. If it wasn't for Antos I'd be out.
Well said Jarv, folks trying to find a middle way in all this will be the real losers. Black and white here...always was a hold-till-the-end multibagger or a none-starter, anything but those choices is a numpty.
Ztr666 - what are you suspicious of antos exactly? Please elaborate?