The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Yahoo article on GGP out a few hours ago: https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/greatland-gold-ggp-share-price-150452829.html
That is categorically incorrect. That is like saying a manufacturer is valued purely on the current inventory they hold rather than the potential of any future growth and sales. I agree it won't capture potential resource upgrades in say 3 years time, but it most definitely will capture more than the last resource estimate.
If as people believe (I do not include myself in this) Newcrest are via JPM shorting GGP stock to keep the price down, why would they even try buy the 5% which will most likely cause the share price to re-rate. Why would they not just refuse the option, which in turn would drop the SP even further, and then offer to buy 100% of GGP. People need to stop spouting unsubstantiated claims which people then latch onto and fixate upon.
A holding of 3% or more would require a TR-1 notification.
If they owned >30%, they would be required under the takeover code to put in a mandatory bid, aka a mandatory offer, for all of GGP's outstanding shares.
Obviously Newcrest want the best deal for themselves, their Board have a fiduciary duty to their own shareholders just like GGP does. Yes they will want to a pay as low price as possible, but they also know about the independent valuation just as we do. Think people are forgetting that is in place to protect both parties.
@Hydrogen I don't think you are correct, why would shareholder approval be required for an asset deal? There wasn't a shareholder vote on giving away the original 70% under the JV so why would there be for the remaining 30%.