Chart, page-9

It is a common misconception that a buyback is simply a financial manipulation to artificially boost share price in the short-term for the benefit of management that usually owns large share option packages. That can certainly be the case, but not all share buybacks are being abused in this manner.

Think of the MLX's balance sheet like a very simple investment portfolio. It only has 2 positions: (1) cash and (2) shares in Bluestone Mines (i.e. Renison). Right now, say, the cash position is 130mn and shares in Bluestone are worth 110mn, adding up to MLX's current market cap of 240mn. Now imagine you are the newly appointed manager of this portfolio. You have to think of what to do with that cash, just like you would with your actual portfolio. What would drive your thoughts on how to improve the performance of your portfolio? It would naturally be the ROI (return on investment) of the assets you consider buying for the cash in your portfolio. That investment could be shares in another company, but it could also be shares in Bluestone (i.e. MLX shares). How would you assess the ROI? One simple way to look at it is, how much tin production do I get for a fixed dollar investment (assuming ASIC is about the same). Right now, my point is that Renison is near unbeatable from that perspective, and I have given a detailed calculation previously.

Also, a quick counter to the "it’s not going to make any more tin" point. In a buyback the remaining shareholders will have a higher shareholding in the company. So tin production does increase for the same number of shares. And that's what really matters to a shareholder: tin production per share!

In summary, there are different ways of improving shareholder value. Sometimes it's better to invest in more production, increase market share, grow topline, which would be the case if MLX's share price was far above 40c. But sub 30c a buyback is far better ROI. It may not increase topline, but it does increase your share in Renison production.