Yes, Mark Williams on the merger call said RED had done their...

Yes, Mark Williams on the merger call said RED had done their due diligence on SLR's assets, which were positive although increased drilling intensity would be done to improve mine life visibility. I'd say to align with RF's 5-year production outlook once the 3 companies come together.

The basis for this of course are the solid M&I resources in Australia (3.08Moz, Mount Monger and Deflector) and 1.1Moz at Sugar Zone. I think they've pretty much achieved this already at Mount Monger and will be a long way down the path at Sugar Zone once FY24 drill results are in.

Ever been around a poker table wondering who the patsy is then realising shit, it's !@#$ me! That's how I feel, so definitely a NO from me as it stands. The reasons have been mentioned already:

- currently trading at 0.84x book value (with tax credits removed from the balance sheet);
- enormous cash flow generation, which is underappreciated. Respected posters like @nordesmic predicted SLR wouldn't generate much free cash flow in FY24 due to large capital intensity at Sugar Zone, which is true, but the cash increases anyway (honest cost reporting, $A gold price);
- 20c increase in NTA/share to $1.13 over 12 months to Dec 31st;
- $663m liquid value, which isn't fully recognised on the balance sheet (net stockpile value, concentrates on hand, GIC), which is rapidly increasing each quarter. I'd guess $700m+ at March 31st.