Funny you mention that because that was also going to be one of my questions. I wanted the opportunity to call the company (doing the valuation) and ask about their associations, if they'd ever arrived at a negative view and put forward the 'value is what you receive vs price is what you pay' argument.
On simple maths it fails. If you put forward the argument that we get an expanded board, expanded exploration targets etc.... I would contend you can still have ALL of that at a fair price (1 for 4). It does NOT logically follow that because of these high level 'synergies' the price is right. It is not logical, or represent fair value.
Is half our company worth $3.7mil? The value of the GGX assets (minus capitalised failed exploration).
H - would love the chance to catch up with you for a coffee/chat at some stage.
