Metals -X in play, page-31

Been a while since I have checked in here at MLX and as a small holder going back to the pre-merger MLX days have a few thoughts.

1. These guys thought they were the "turnaround kings" with track record of reviving poor performing mines
2. Even recently they have "doubled down" and seem to bet the company on turning Nifty around.
3. Motivations for APAC and other instos seems to be that Boardroom seats and company might be in play.

With this in mind - I'm guessing the policy of achieving an entry price below that of APAC and others is imperative, even then its high risk, as you will have to average down below what could be an extremely low-ball opportunistic offer at some uncertain point in the future to make any profit from MLX (its not like they are going to be paying dividends anytime soon ).

I've voted No to everything except resolution 6 - current management seem incapable of turning Nifty around, and even if they do we also need the price of copper to improve. I'm not calling APAC white knights or anything like that but it looks like we need to intervene to save the company from current management if people are long term interested in the future of the company.

If MLX had done a 3 way demerger with WGX to take the gold assets, an ASX listed vehicle REN to take the Tin assets, and MLX to take everything else (Cu and odds and sods Ni) I would have happily held MLX and REN and would have exited MLX years ago. This goes back to the original demerger argument where I was skeptical about the reasoning for the demerger - if the market couldn't value a combined MLX with the gold mines in WA and Tin in Tasmania efficiently, then if you accept that argument, then it stands to reason that there should have been a demerger into 3 separate Tin, Copper and Gold assets.