I disagree with both points, although I'd like to hear from both...

I disagree with both points, although I'd like to hear from both posters who said thewse things, how the conclusions were arrived at.

Point 1: Stone not interested in shareholders or the company: Stone will be the major shareholders and have 3 (?) positions on the Board of AAM. That's geologist, lawyer, and the Chair of Stone, the parent. Stone geo's are also checking out the geology of AAM's assets, as per recent ANN. What more could we hope for in terms of involvement with the company?

Point 2: Dilution: Yes, the will be a Share Purchase Plan, so there will be some dilution. Fact is, if the share price remains under 2.5c, there will be no take up,so no dilution there. As for the Stone injection of funds, they wsill not be like S708 Sophisticated Investors, who want to make a quick profit and scram: Stone will bev in it for the long-term, imo, or have some plan for the company down the track.
_____________

We have a recapitalisation here- an injection of funds, so the company can move on from their almost bankrupt position. This company has been saved.

Sure, I'm a holder, and could be seen to have some bias, but I am attepmtping logic here. I'd be interested to know how "Stone doesn't care about shareholders', etc. Do we think other major shareholders care about ASX-listed companies? Everyone wants a profit, and Stone can only get a profit if they sort AAM out.

This is going to take *ages*. We've only just begun! Good times. ;)