Member Info for Quady

Morning Iceberg, the resolution, will be passed, this is how companies are defended. If we were distressed, then there would be no point, as such a share issue would fail. But many other actions can be taken in concert, to keep a bid being successful. Keeping the book diverse, is NM's masterstroke, and is what is going to eventually give us a payday of significant value. Let's see how this develops. I am amazed, that so many experienced investors have never come across situations like this before.

Read the Fortune Oil saga, that's exactly what happened in reverse. Two families got shares that were issued, issue after issue, everyone else excluded, and company taken private, one year after issue, once they achieved 75%. The share price stagnated, It happens.

Hi ToS1963, that's exactly what has happened with last two issues, BHP and NCM were excluded.

Hello DrQu, I am sorry for the google remark. On Jefferson, that is almost in line with denigrating Churchill by saying he was a racist.
Churchill was a great mind, but he wasn't great in every area. Why ? Because he was human.
The same with Thomas Jefferson, a truly great man, but not perfect in every way.
You are correct on the slavery question, and although, unlike Locke, whose life would have been in danger, Jefferson's life, would not have been at risk.
But we must remember to not look at our predecessors though modern eyes.
He wanted as wide a readership as possible, and I disagree with his stance on slavery.
However he ideas and conceptual thinking have stood the test of time, and to me is up with the greatest of thinkers.

OK DrQu, that is not the case, while your argument may seem reasonable to many people, Freedom of speech only is defined by two principles, the philosophical debate is about how you enact freedom of speech.
The two principles are that you free to say whatever you like, without fear of persecution or prosecution.
Those are the base principles that freedom of speech is built upon.
Legally defined freedom of speech, does not impose restrictions. ( that is a trick of extremists on the left and on the right )
Remember freedom of speech means you cannot persecute someone, so if you say something that persecutes someone, then that is not freedom of speech. Today we call it hate speech, it has had many descriptions throughout time.
But by insulting or engaging in dehumanising your fellow humans, you take away their freedom of speech, that is why such behaviour is not freedom of speech, but hate speech.

It doesn't matter newtoit, the revenue the government get is through tax, not shares.
They just want it in production.

Don't get me wrong Montecristo, I could be wrong and we get brought out cheap.
But I am just looking at this share in a dispassionate way, and the mostly likely outcome.
If the book was less diverse, and BHP owned 40% of Solgold, I would think Solgold taking this to production, as highly unlikely, as BHP could acquire another 10%
However that is not the case.
All the best.

That I would suggest Montecristo is the 64,000 dollar question.
I think many people would like to own Solgold outright. BHP is the one always mentioned.
But BHP own a percentage of other mines around the world and don't own them outright.
Solgold may fit this pattern, by owning 13% of the company, they don't only get Alpala at 13%, but every other mine we bring to production, with no extra outlay, not a bad deal for BHP in the long term, and who knows, over the decades, they may get the opportunity to own a bigger percentage.

Also Montecristo, may I point out, that BHP can approach other holders of Solgold shares, and buy them.
CGP would be the obvious first target.
But this has not happened, as I said it wouldn't.
Too many people are looking at this share, as something that is going to be sold.
Ask yourself, with so many people saying for the last 7 years, that it will be sold, why it hasn't happened.

Hi Montecristo, that's the whole point, you would have to agree a price that the other stakeholders would accept.
NCM has already publicly announced they do not want to sell their stake, but increase it.
I suspect the same is true for all the other main stakeholders, hence no low bids.
And thus BHP will not increase it's offer to above NPV.
This can be defended.

Basically our last two issues, have done what I predicted over a year ago, I said we could bring in other parties and exclude NCM and BHP, everyone on this chatroom said it wouldn't happen, but it's already happened.
We I suspect will bring in over large players, with nominal holdings to make the book even more diverse, and so make this even harder to launch a bid for.

The more diverse the book, the easier this is to do.

Hi addicknt, we have taken our latest shareholder at a 0.6% stake, however they like everyone else would like more.
Let's say BHP make a hostile bid, we can issue another 500 million shares to everyone else apart from BHP, at the price that BHP bid, thus funding our drilling campaign further at a higher price, and defending a takeover. Other strategies can also be brought into play, which have been debated many times on this site. This share can be defended.

Yes it's part of NM's defense, that is the whole point of a diverse book, and a diverse book, with companies that can ramp up it's holding rather quickly, should a hostile bid be received.

One of my favourite Jefferson quotes, which was as true then as it is today.
A man who reads nothing, is better educated than a man who reads newspapers.

Dr Qu, you have not read Locke, you have googled that. This is what I mean about lazy people. Locke was not a deist, he was theocratic in his thinking, so everything has to be read with the time period in mind. He didn't fancy being executed. A reasonable step to take, I think you would agree. I really don't understand your point on Jefferson, unless you are trying to apply today's standards to yesterday's environment.

By the way if you are referring to Scotlands proposed hate crime bill, both sides are wrong, as th bill refers to protected groups. We don't protect groups under free speech, as everyone gets protection from prosecution and persecution. And the opposing side are wrong saying it brings in blasphemy laws, by the back door, and prevents free speech. It doesn't.

Tandmeister please filter me Permanently, lots of people discuss other topics, when no news happening.

Dr Qu, people are lazy today, free speech is very closely defined over centuries, I can only repeat what free speech is. Too many people don't read philosophy any more, they Google something, and believe they understand a subject.

Agreed Miagi, that's why you have to read Locke, Rousseau, Paine, Jefferson and many others, incidents as you describe are covered over 300 years ago. Lockes thoughts on the subject, are detailed and complex.
We have too many unintelligent people in the world, who think they are clever, by saying free speech means you can say anything, it doesn't, and never has. Even if you go back to Ancient Greece, and the invention of free speech, which was one of the founding components of the earliest democracy in the world.