Hi all. Well, 12c is better than 8c
. Had I known I wouldn't, like others, have sold any at 12c. It served only to increase our losses.
I can see we were outsmarted by our JV partner but am still totally dismayed that we found ourselves in this illiquid position, where Q held even more power than before the signing in 2002 and the litigation in 2010.
As for PPB's valuation and their "fair and reasonable" conclusion, what can we say but that it confirms (for me anyway) that valuations are always subjective and can be massaged in many directions. I ploughed through the assessment online and can't locate the exact pages at the moment but from memory PPB acknowledged AGS's over $30m paid towards development and I think it was over $27m of concentrate held. .. So, as MD has pointed out before, they've picked up 100% of ML6402 and EL5017 for .. well I wouldn't even call it a song; scarcely a miserly note. .. They must have been really peed off with the litigation.
Imagine valuing another asset without considering development contributions and a premium for position, 100% ownership and future potential.
Looks like a fait accompli. Well done to the newcomers who picked value at these levels; and best wishes to all we stale longs who always believed in the resource but weren't (as I wasn't) smart enough to jump when the court battle began. Could even say it's been a good argument for TA over FA and loyalty
