based on your analysis, it looks like tianqi turned out to be the curse for the GB project partners. T and IGO control 51% and since T controls its JV with IGO, just with 25.1%, it also controls the entire GB. I don’t know if IGO can take control by buying the Alb stake - my guess is that T holds the ace, it is possible Tianqi played clever in its JV agreement with Igo and consequently will continue to control GB even with just 25.1 stake. (Igo maybe be lame duck voting-wise with its JV partnership with T depending on their JV terms)
If IGO is on the prowl, imo it’s better off buying a project that has long life rather than GB. I think doubling down on GB is a stupid decision because tianqi is depleting the resource so fast while prices are at lowest levels and even if it rises to usd1,500, it’s still very little profit Igo can get, and by the time spod rises further, they’ll be counting their mine life with fingers on one hand and would be desperate again for another project (but I can not predict their pendulum between engenuity and stupidity), preparing for its demise rather than watch a rising KV.
So both alb and igo are both caught between a rock and a hard place.
Pls thinks it’s smart flooding the market, I think it’s fool also. Mcap gap between PLs and Ltr had come down from $10.5b to $6.5b now, a $4 billion reduction. Some equilibrium in valuation will take place soon - pls still has a huge cliff ahead compared to Ltr. Ltr just need to successfully ramp up and the PE driven value will prevail, I believe the gap should be no more than $2-$3b.
Sigma still has $4.5b mcap on comparable volume, a gap of aud2.6b with Ltr’s $1.9b.
M&A activity is likely to get robust as majors try to pick up distressed projects. That’s business reality.
With regard to Germany guaranteeing environmental safety in Serbia, well someone heard his neighbour promise to his dog he won’t mess up the forest, but his cat quickly growled………meeeeeeooowwwe!!!!
(20min delay)