Trouble at t' mill, page-14

"what's your buy price?​

I think @madamswer does not have a price. FMG has done the unforgivable in deciding to TRANSITION to renewables.
It is a hoax, some say"

Again with the gaslighting, eh?

If I was to become a shareholder in FMG, provided it was not going into business lines that are evil and provided it generated risk-adjusted returns on my capital at sufficiently high levels above the company's cost of capital, I'd have no carp with FMG investing wherever the directors see fit.

Heck, they could get involved in grocery retailing or plumbing distribution or insurance broking or even aged care... provided they knew what they were doing and didn't destroy the value of the capital of shareholders.

I have no problem whatsoever with investing in uncorrelated areas of business. (Wesfarmers do it all the time and I've been a WES shareholder for most of my adult life).

Trouble with FMG is that no one has been able to clarify - disconcertingly, not even the company's own announcements and presentations - the quantum and timing, along with other characteristics, of the financial return expected in the capital being invested. This is a pretty basic and fundamental tenet of shareholder value creation, or otherwise.

If it was clearly discernible to me that FMG was going to make acceptable risk-adjusted returns from investing in new technologies (e.g. underseas power cables between Australia and Singapore conveying energy produced in NT solar farms, or hydrogen-powered aeroplanes, or any other new-fangled idea), I'd have zero compunction about investing in the company alongside you.

I merely respect the value of my family's capital too much to have it invested on the basis of indeterminate investment returns.

So instead of the churlish baiting, and misrepresentation of the opinions of others whose investment process happens to be different to yours, maybe stick to the substantive issues of discussion.

.