A few things13 Jun 2018 15:03
PAAA
In an earlier post you say: " I think it’s entirely correct that as lenders of last resort, the treasury should receive a fee."
I think it is important to point out that the Treasury would not be making the loan, but would be being asked to guarantee repayment of a loan provided by a third party.
Roulette
You state in an earlier post: "What I cannot get my head around, and also what is costing me sleep, is, as CF has openly stated, the mine will be built by plan a,b,c or whatever, why would the govt offer a guarantee supported by taxpayers money? The mine will be built, will bring in huge revenue for the country, jobs and prosperity, even if HMT do not support it."
I would disagree. In the 2017 annual report Russell Scrimshaw states the following:
"In order to fully realise this transformational opportunity for the UK, a partnership with the UK Government, in the form of a Treasury Guarantee under the Infrastructure Project Authority's scheme, is essential."
Some posters also seem to think that stage 2 financing is imminent but the report goes on to state:
"Behind the scenes, work was underway to prepare for the execution of the Company's stage 2 financing in late 2018."
Without TorPs this will not happen.
I doubt whether a TorP can be imminent in view of yesterdays directors dealing, however small.
The Company are far too wise to leave themselves open to any accusations.
Sxx will be anxious to uphold Chris Frasers: "The culture we have throughout the organisation is reflected in our corporate values."
Still LTH but not getting carried away in the short term.
P