I think they forgot to tell a certain QLD copper company about this, but its true. An entity, from how I understand it, has to be posting profits by its operative self in order to buy back its own shares. Besides, and with all respect to BillBrown and the dozens of posters on here in favour of a buy back, it just doesn't fit the bill (no pun) of what the company is all about.
The big benefit out of going with a buy back would be to take some liquidity out of the stock, but is having 10% less shares on issue really going to make much of a difference to the intos fiddling around with the register? You would think not given that we consolidated 90% of our shares and it did diddly-squat.
Furthermore, we have to ask ourselves where the company's money is better spent. Do we spend, say, $6M and buy back 10% of the company's shares in order to boost everyone's share in the company by roughly 11%. Or, do we spend, say, $30M on a producing asset that could, for example, generate $15M net cash per annum. I know the magnitude of these two examples aren't parallel, but you should get my point. A buyback, in my opinion, is a sign of company resting on their laurels. Conti has an agressive growth strategy, and could do with all the cash it can get. Buyback is out of the question.
CCC Price at posting:
18.5¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
