shareholder update, page-96

your argument is just as flawed as his.

you're both arguing about semantics.. The gist of the deal is 110m will be paid. He says they paid $110 for 50% while you say they paid $70 for 50%. You're both right, except his way makes the deal look more positive while yours has a more negative connotation to it. In reality they will be paying $110, $30m to KDR to do whatever they like with it and another 80m to help fund the project although they will own 50%. So I see what you are trying to explain and I also understand what he's trying to say. Whatever move on.

How about this scenario, for both you and @binwood, WHAT IF SQM pay the $80m only for both KDR and SQM to realise that its not feasible to go ahead with the project (for whatever reason) and so SQM get 50% of NOTHING. Do you still stand by your argument that SQM paid 70m and not 110m?


To further pick flaws in your argument @Cosmoterios, you claim that IF SQM paid $110m then KDR's MC would be $290m and not $185m yet you two are arguing about a difference of 40m. Can you explain to me how a deal with an extra $40m will warrant a market cap rerate of $105m?

Go figure.
Some people really have no clue.