Member Info for Monkey70

'Anything less and EUA may as well mine it tbh. (And that doesnt seem likely given time invested on FSP to date)'

The BOD know this and any potential buyer certainly knows this too. The BOD are basically saying 'Unless you give us something over £x, we will mine it ourselves and get over twice what you are offering in three years time, double that again after five.'

It is not as if we need to sell. They have to make us want to sell.

Imagine you were at Sotherby's and there was this ancient Ming vase that was the last of its kind available to complete your collection. You know you had to have it. Nothing else mattered. The problem is there is a wealthy South African collector, a Chinese museum backed by the State and a few other investment consortiums that want it too.

What would you do? Go out of your way to get this. Call in favours to strengthen your financial muscle.

You know the owner of this Ming vase doesn't have to sell and has put a high reserve on it.

This is a bit like EUA at the moment.

Exactly that, Beast.

Who wants us knows they have to make an enticing offer otherwise we would have activated the SinoSteel contract ages ago. I strongly believe that enticing figures were bandied about before the FSP started in July last year and this is why the BOD have gone down this route. Cannot see another way because we are not a distressed sale and have cash in the bank (along with the security blanket of the SinoSteel contract).

The BOD know what they are doing and hold a very strong hand at the table. Any potential buyer knows this and they want what we have - cue, a bidding war (several non-binding offers).

I believe NN brought AP on board to 'de-risk' the question of what we have in the ground.

Just remember we did not put ourselves up for sale - we were asked to by interested parties.

GLA.

Nice informative post, TC :)

Enjoyed reading that.

* When the salesman looked at the Defender from inside the showroom through the glass. NOT when I drove it through the showroom window. Haha.

Will be getting a new clutch and flywheel for my 2008 Prodrive Vantage V8 as cannot see myself parting with her but I may be tempted to get the new Defender 110 6-cylinder as my other motor. Test drove one of those a few months back and it was great.

Even tried it across some muddy field and through a stream. Don't tell the farmer ;)

On handing her back, the dealer asked if I enjoyed my drive. 'Oh, yes - took everything I could throw at her.' He smiled then stopped when he looked at her covered in mud, grass and cow-pats through the showroom window :D

£1.28 was my original target for a full sale. £2.00 with a bidding war.

GLA.

If NN cannot afford EUA, someone else will (likely with a consortium, state help or a JV).

Cannot see NN letting this slip through their grasp. This opportunity will not happen again for them and the MDA has been set up with them at the helm. Too many ducks lined up.

GLA.

'A potential purchaser should make a non-binding offer as attractive as possible to stand out from other purchasers. The offer should demonstrate the purchaser’s ability to meet the terms required by the seller.'

Emphasis on the last sentence. *The terms required by the BOD i.e. close to their base valuation*

https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/deals/non-binding-offer/

GLA.

Plus DS would NOT have moved to oversee the M&A and DLA Piper would NOT have been mentioned either.

GLA.

'In fact, the only way this collapses is if the BOD themselves decide the offers aren't up to snuff, and if they decide that it's because they think shareholders will be best served by going it alone.'

I believe any such low-ball offers would NOT have reached this stage. The BOD will have given UBS a ball-park figure. No-one wants to waste any time as time costs money. The BOD would also have cancelled the FSP many months ago and activated the SinoSteel contract. A non-binding offer, basically, means both parties have an agreement in principle (regards figures, etc) but this is not legally binding (yet).

GLA.

Number 3 - 'Timing Issues' - the potential buyer(s) and EUA will have agreed a timescale for the transition from non-binding to binding.

The rest of it is a useful read. Apologies if it has already been posted previously and I missed it.

https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/deals/non-binding-offer/

GLA

The calm before the storm, methinks.

Aye, a very generous discount. I'm sticking with 12-15% based on this being the last unconsolidated PGM play, global demand and environmental pressure.

GLA.

Would be nice if they are just doing a little housekeeping and clearing the decks for the mega RNS to land tomorrow :)

This RNS is to assure the market things have been done by the book. Most of us PI's knew that anyway.

GLA.

I concur, Gecko - the last drop (mainly assisted by flapping PI's and their SL's) felt like the final tree shake to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I also believe the BOD will have put a 'time limit' on the transition from non-binding offers to binding and this would also have been agreed with UBS/DLA Piper.

GLA.

A speedy recovery. Got infected in November. Felt like I had woke up after sleeping in a builder's skip for a couple of nights. Then had brain fog for ten days. Sense of smell and taste came back gradually after three weeks.

Not quite got millions, Mac, but have made a few top-ups of late to make a nice round number (for a bit of fun) of 222,222 :)

Looking forward and awaiting (somewhat patiently) the conclusion of the FSP.

GLA.

Aye, Mac.

Blatantly obvious. Like taking sweets off a baby. Won't go on forever and we are another day closer.

UPS - lol, sorry :D

UBS. The BOD would certainly NOT want to be advised by a courier company.