Member Info for Steve4077

>> And calling others stupid etc who don’t agree with him?

There seems to be a lot of that going around at the moment :)

I guarantee that making a personal attack on someone is not going to convince them of your argument, so you have to ask yourself why people do it. It never looks good though for the person making the attack, unless it's a really witty put-down in which case it's acceptable :)

I don't know Quady personally, but it seems to me he has a strong view on something and defends that position stubbornly. I think its a reasonable position based on the evidence he presents, including the public statements by NM.

Personally, I lean toward the idea that a JV of some form is more likely, given the size of the task involved in going it alone (and I voted that way in the Zoros poll) , but every major was a junior at some point. Either could happen and there doesn't seem much point in continually recycling the same arguments or making personal attacks.

We all want SOLG to do well and there are multiple paths to that goal. Let's see what happens.

Yes, agree. I think it is going to be volatile for a while but difficult to see how the market cap doesn't grow considerably in the longer term, especially with the current outlook for copper.

It is entirely possible for two people to hold different but reasonable positions. Everything in the world isn't black and white or right and wrong. At work, I actively encourage people to disagree with me and I wouldn't hire anyone who wouldn't stand up to me. Considering other people's perspectives is how you learn outside your own bubble.

Who cares who is screaming what on Twitter. I'm invested here because I did research on the company and then did a double-take when I saw the market cap.

>> steve, you really are daft. It's not the number of shareholders which is important, it's the number of shares they own. What don't you understand about that?

OK, one more time with feeling. Obviously the number of shares is the important factor in voting. However, your statement that almost 50% of shareholders voted against NM is patently false and an attempt to mislead anyone not paying attention to the detail.

1) The vast majority of individual shareholders backed NM, which is a great sign of confidence in the CEO from private investors
2) The tiny minority of shareholders who voted against NM have a lot of shares so their individual impact on the outcome is far greater.

It's like on this board. There are a small minority who want Mather gone so they can sell quickly, but they make a disproportionate amount of noise.

Yes, with this share I keep asking myself what am I missing? :)

@addicknt If you can't tell the difference between 50% of shares and 50% of shareholders, then I see no point in wasting further effort on the conversation.

>> Steve, but it doesn't work on the principle of one person one vote, does it? So your comment is completely irrelevant.

No it doesn't. However, you said "The fact is, in virtually every other circumstance I've ever seen, a situation where nearly 50% of shareholders vote against a CEO"

I was just pointing out your statement wasn't accurate. A small number of share holders voted against the CEO, but with a lot of shares.

Except 50% of shareholders DIDN'T vote against the CEO.

A tiny percentage of share holders voted against the CEO. With one shareholder, one vote, he would have won by a landslide. The ones who did vote against him just had a lot of shares and were voting to award themselves the shares of the vast majority as cheaply as possible.

That's OK, invest in both - I have :)

Three burglars broke into my house today. Fortunately, I had some friends with me and we managed to fight them off.

However, the police told me I should either be more cooperative with the burglars, or move out of the house so someone more burglar-friendly can live here.

>> He should do the decent thing and resign. Shocking, simply shocking..

I really don't understand this perspective. Major mining companies are trying to gain control over SOLG on the cheap (and I am sure that they will not care about the interests of PIs). Through an unprecedented effort that involved contacting all the PIs, NM managed to avoid a hostile takeover.

From a PI perspective, how can he be the problem in this situation? Perhaps you could explain how we benefit if BHP/NCM take control?

LOL, I think this share has multiple personality disorder :)

Every time it gets past 0.30, I consider selling but then look at the assets and the upcoming deal and think its going to go a lot higher, so I wait and it drops back down below 0.25. Never mind - I am sure it will be on the way back up again soon :)

This isn't a normal situation. BHP/NCM/CGP tried a hostile takeover and lost. 10% is quite a wide margin in that situation. The problem for them is that they want a cheap takeover and NM won't oblige. It is pure self-interest, not because they want to improve the share price for PIs.

>> It's business, you need a consensus.
Not in the face of a hostile takeover. If someone is attacking you because they want to steal what you have, then you can't be judged on your ability to keep them happy.

Didn't read it properly - you were talking about COPL :)

RNS yesterday? Where are you seeing that?

No, they weren't quoted. The article said the declined to comment. In fact, no one referenced in the news (sic) article officially commented on anything.

lol at the UT being 0.26 :)

Where did that come from after the price was moving between 0.27 and 0.28 for the last two hours?

>> Steve NCM withdrew their Board Director as a direct result of the FNV deal.

Yes, I know. I knew that before the article. I wasn't saying that NCM weren't unhappy (that is why I sarcastically included 'Shock!' in my response). I was commenting on the low quality of the article.