Member Info for Longtermview24

IBAB you don't know what other options are available. To suggest otherwise is a lie. Liars are disgisting and cowards.

You also don't know what Fraser's mindset is about the value of his shares. If he is offered a role in AA to continue to deliver the project that would cushion the blow and would also be a large conflict of interest - other sholders don't have the ability to mitigate their losses unless they too are Aussie mates with the AA board

statsnerd - more balls, even bigger balls than post 1, Strewth!

statsnerd - what a load of balls

Good on ya JR for standing up for yourself. Ignore the self-declared self-appointed geniuses. But do be careful before jumping in elsewhere to recover any losses (and let's continue to hope for a positive outcome here) we're on the canvass but the ref hasn't reached the end of the 10 count yet.)

That's the thing Yuri, we don't even need one entity to put up the money ($600, which is more like 450M quid) for the next two years spend. If we could find one or two cornerstone investors to raise half of it, a placing could easily raise the rest,.

I agree with you Myo and 15Lives. Ordinarily a bid like AA's at the level it is, depriving us sholders of the upside in production, should be seen as hostile, not a savior. For less risk and less money AA could have a massive slice of SXX for the $600M that we need for the next two years progress. They're being greedy. In my view they're overreaching, but will get away with it in the absence of any other interest.

In normal circumstances, I would expect Fraser to be leaving no stone unturned to find an alternative. The only nagging doubt I have about Frasers sincerity is the fact that there is undoubtedly a link between those in charge at AA and those in charge at SXX, not just Fraser but Scrimshaw. Somebody will have to run SXX for AA. Does Fraser have a conflict of interest? Will his friends at AA let him step into a role at AA where he can pick up a six or seven figure salary and share options that will recover much of his paper loss.

If this was a bid from Rio or any other miner, I'd feel a lot more confident that Fraser was pulling out all the stops to find a better outcome for sholders.

After the "three sources" article from the 14th citing a bid coming "in the coming days", I thought it might drop today. It still might (after hours on a Friday, hoping the dust would settle over the weekend would be telling).

I don't want a sale, so don't really want a bid, but we need them to put it on the table so all the speculation can end and the BOD can come clean on what they've been up to. Then we can properly assess our options and properly assess whether the BOD have been inept/negligent/underhanded or indeed if their appears to be any collusion or other nefarious activity taking place.

Then we can also assess if there is a way forward, with or without the BOD's assistance, where we might be able to save our investment.

Post of the year so far Max Doom...…

Nobody here is anymore p****** off than me, I have a very significant holding in SM....
BUT, people here are putting 2 + 2 and getting 5...
Of course they were and should still be pursing the strategic plan - which included trying to find a partner for the $600m
Of course they were talking to AA 9 months ago they said all along during stage 2 funding that they were talking to significant parties in the sector it does mean that SM were hatching a sell out....
I am quiet sure the CF does not want a take over, just like other shareholders he stands to gain a great deal remaining one.
The real and very tangible f*** ups in this debacle are in my opinion:

1) Allowing JP Morgan and their group of companies to take short positions against SM whilst also being advisers.
2) Continuing to use JP Morgan after the stage 2 f*** up
3) This is the most serious of them all and imo started the slide to where we are now.....
Putting out an RNS on 6th August 2019 simply stating that the the $500m bond offering was cancelled due to market
conditions without any kind of proper explanation, mitigation or forward plan. A simple further RNS released at the
same time saying what was going on and what was going to be done going forward would most likely avoided some if
not most of the catastrophic slide in the share price .
4) Further damage that now limits upside was the decision to state that they would recommend the 5.5p if it was offered. There was no need to state this at this time especially as no offer has yet been made, it gives AA a huge advantage knowing this and will limit if not remove altogether and higher offer being made.

so I don't believe in the conspiracy theories but I do believe that the BOD has been remiss in the way they have released information..... and their failure to call a general meeting or issue further guidance as this situation unfolds is imo bordering on negligence of their duty to the shareholders, sure they can't discuss the offer but they can damn well discuss other matters like progress of the strategic plan, if there are other avenues still being pursued etc....

MYO....I'm hoping that the "expect to recommend" line was to nudge others to put their best foot forward. It could, of course, be a hit from the company to us sholders that this is the only show in town. It can be interpreted both ways.

As I said earlier, when (and I believe its a when not if) the offer is put on the table, I hope we get full disclosure from the company on the SR progress and other news that will assist with proper evaluation of the AA offer and the alternatives (insolvency being one)

it says a lot more than that!

Because it's true????!!!! Utter Balls. You've spoken t the Qataris et al and they have told you from their mouths that they don't care about losing money.?Get a grip.

I don't want an offer. I don't want to sell the company. What we need is to raise the funds. We want them to subscribe for new shares.

IBAB will try to convince you that they don't care about losing money. I don't subscribe to that opinion and am in your camp

With the "three sources" article leak, I'm expecting the offer will be firmed up by tomorrow latest. Then, I hope, the company will provide full disclosure on what's going on with the SR.

casa, you didn't really answer my question but that's ok, I don't need your endorsement to know my point is valid

Understood Casa, but would you not agree that for less risk and good return there's an economic case not to take the whole but to take part - a large part - where you add value immediately and could get back your initial investment and have a free ride on a very significant stake in SXX. Much more liquidity and a faster return on investment taking a large chunk as a strategic partner.

That seems like a better deal to me. I think they're biting off more than they need to chew. 80% for $600M is still deal of the century and gives them liquid shares to sell in a standalone company.

We need another halo investor/strategic partner who can see this strategy and bid against AAL. But we're against the clock and from the outside it doesn't appear like SXX are breaking a sweat on the SR and/or a plan B. I hope there is something going on behind the scenes.

For all the hindsight experts on here telling us this was a terrible investment, if you read the presentations, listened to the conference calls and studied the crop trials, this is a good investment. If it wasn't AAL would be trying to steal it and the II's would not have bought in (I don't care what anyone says II's don't invest to intentionally lose money, they may ne able to afford the losses better than PI's but they invested because they saw the compelling investment proposition)

Kapersky

Interesting theory. AA are offering 5.5p - $300-odd million for the company, but they also take the 250M Gina royalty and the $300-odd million bonds as a liability, so 700-800M obligation in total.

If they subscribed for new shares at 2.5p they could get about 70% of the company for $600M and the shares would increase substantially as the project would be de-risked by the fund raise and by the strong strategic partner covenant/name they bring. They could leave Fraser in charge to continue the work (that they have endorsed and been complimentary about) and had a more passive investment, albeit as the majority holder. They could probably sell down half of their investment quickly and be in about 33% of SXX for free. Not a bad result I would think.

The takeover seems unnecessarily greedy. Will it backfire? Are they biting off more than they can chew (they do have other large capital investment projects on their books currently). I hold Fraser accountable for this debacle, but the head of AA night just be the greediest capitalist shyster and if they take our company I hope he comes a cropper.

Excuse me for this one any ladies but I’m lowering this to my level. Anglo must be sh*****g themselves at the moment because they know this is a steal and that makes it a steal for everyone else. Other miners may be saying” stuff that, we’ll have a crack”. And why not? I f I had £2.5 billion I would be counter offering now.

------

Bellers, things is we don't even need $2,5billion, just $600M, even AAL agree with that analysis

Ironic that stage one is being signed today - the very excuse used to explain the failure of the bonds initially.

Still 6 weeks till the end of the SR, but the towel looks like its coming over the ropes early

Shysters