I am YES for the merger.To be open, I have a large (for me)...

I am YES for the merger.

To be open, I have a large (for me) stake in RED but have held SLR for about 3 years - therefore in the RED, so to speak with regards to SLR but that's only about $12k.

My feeling is that we are both in a good position but we are both vulnerable. SLR because of mine life issues and RED because of our cash position. I feel that together, we have cash to defend against a hostile TO while at the same time a great long term cash generating machine. Hopefully we will be lead by someone with vision. Personally, I would prefer MW.

The "merger of equals" will put us on more radars in terms of balancing investment houses. I like that we predominantly operate in Australia however, Canada also shares similar stable corporate values that I personally like, unlike other countries which have different political and geopolitical risks tied to them.

While I would like to see a perfect apples to apples comparison, this is impossible, we need to use some common sense IMHO. How can we truly value and compare SLR's cash against the operation and mine life RED has in place. That kind of analysis is beyond me and I imagine beyond most here. The SLR side will say words to the effect "...that the mine life we have is longer...just wait and see." If this is correct, RED can use the same counter argument and that 15 year LOM will be extended. We might even point to life mine extension of Darlot to support our argument. But we don't have the data.

Who knows, The Sugar Zone may be hiding a bunch of good data till we merge to make us more solid.

So CJ, while I have a clear answer, I am happy to have my mind changed with good solid arguments. Hope my rambling makes sense and answers your question. I hope I have prosecuted my reasoning but accept it may have many cracks that I am happy to have explained to me.