Ann: CQT: Supplementary Bidder's Statement , page-2

re: Ann: CQT: Supplementary Bidder's Stat... Cqt says that it is offering a premium to the nqm share price.
Now this is true at the point in time.

Cqt says that conquest has a board with a successful track record of increasing shareholder value and shows the chart of cqt compare to nqm for the period 1/03/2010 to 28/06/2010.
That is the worse case of picking their own data to reflect a false image. The chart shows that cqt has gone up over 40 percent compared to nqm which has gone nowhere during that period.
What they didn?t show you is the fact that the comparison is taken with a start time when the cqt price is at the lowest. Why don?t they pick September 2009 as a starting point then instead of going up 40 percent cqt would have gone down over 200 percent!
The one year chart of cqt shows a clear downtrend while the nqm chart shows a sideways trend which may be broken to the upside thanks to the takeover offer.

Cqt says that nqm shareholders will gain exposure to the Mt Carlton project while retaining exposure to pajingo.
It is indeed good to gain exposure to another project with conquest mining. But the question asked is how is it beneficial to nqm? The Carlton project is not like next door to pajingo how is it synergistic? If I want exposure to another project I could have just bought cqt. What is the benefit of combining two companies together ?In this case the only benefit I can think of is the fact that this may raise the profile of the cqt as it can then call herself a producer instead of an explorer.

Cqt says nqm has a very short reserve base of perhaps one year .
But they did not mention that nqm has said that we have resource that would last 14 years (thought that include twin hills). Neither did they say that there is a good chance that the resource can be converted to reserve. Telling a half truth is simply says that cqt has the intention to mislead.

Cqt says cqt is more liquid than nqm. That?s true but liquidity is only one criteria for any investment. The most important criteria is whether if the company is growing its cash flow. And at this point in time nqm is definitely growing its cash flow while cqt is burning cash. And it is also growing its resource.

Cqt says we can participate in a growth oriented company.
Why didn?t they say that nqm is a growth oriented company too and they have a clear vision to achieve that?

This is what nqm have achieved over the past year:
Have a look at Dotswood and have the guts to cast it aside when it is not profitable.
Have a look at twin hill and purchased it at a very good price. This will enacbe nqm to increase production by over 50 percent.
Have a vision of becoming a mid tied producer and working toward it. Perhaps the most important is that nqm has the resource (ie capital and cash flow) to achieve what it sets out to achieve. And not only that; nqm is able to achieve an increase production in the near term compared to cqt which may take years before an ounce of gold can be produced.

The question you ask is: cqt has the vision but at this point in time does it have the resource to achieve it. Maybe they have the management but I still think that they will have to raise money a fair amount of money to achieve their vision and in the economic climate now it may not be that easy.

Goodoh