Not sure what to do with accusations of emotion when I clearly laid a list of fundamental problems. I'm passionate about defending shareholder rights, even if they don't understand whats best for them. How about you address my concern of :
A / The underpriced placements VS independent Analysis of value and
B/ The risk to Australian shareholders as minority holders with ZERO board control. Here's an introduction to minority holder risk to adjust those rose coloured glasses of yours.
http://www.companydirectors.com.au/director-resource-centre/publications/company-director-magazine/2013-back-editions/april/opinion-do-not-forget-minority-shareholders This line shows you absorbed Zero comprehension of my points-
4mtpa coking coal listed on asx is something i think a lot of funds would want to own. Really? And what percentage of that operation will AKM own at production? Do you understand what the S stands for in EPS? Why is the share price STILL discounted?
Before you make more poor assumptions I'll give you a heads up on normal business practices.
A/ The stocks public price doesn't determine fair value for its assets. There are innumerable examples of this on the ASX and the re rates that follow when companies achieve fair value for shareholders.
T was only able to make this bid for control at 2.1 cents because the CEO let him. The CEO had advantage over T after the first placement and he hasn't used it. Yes, AKM needs a 50% Mong partnership but it doesnt have to be with ONE guy, or at 51%. As a side note, AKM was never about to go bust, nor does it have to use Ts money for this project. Get it?
Your statement that T could have stolen(?) the rights to this deposit off AKM if he wanted but went via the stock as a show of good faith is just 5 flavours of crazy. Who upvotes this?
As for the "premium" to the market- would it be inconceivable that a billionaire could depress a shares prices as a strategy to make a weak bid for control look generous? There's a multi-billion dollar asset at stake.
Please be more judicious if you want to reply to this because shareholders get screwed over far too often and theres nothing sadder than shareholders defending the very strategies that are used to deny them due rewards for courageous risk.
(20min delay)