Well I hope SLR manage to sell all their bullion at the top lest they get demonized for selling at a loss of ??? from the top of gold prices or even worse yet if they sell after gold prices start to drop as it always does in more stable macro-economic times. This is along the lines of what the people that want to vote no seem to be saying they want the best of the best deals and are not willing to settle for less even if it benefits them in the long run that means nothing because it's not the best deal ever.
I honestly cannot be bothered to explain the same points over and over again I won't bother posting again until someone comes up with a point different than we have more money or the share price would be higher if we didn't merge. You are fundamentally missing the point of a merger, when you merge you will have a 400k oz gold company with 500mil+ cash that can expand from there.
How about instead of merging SLR just buys or builds another 200k oz gold producing company/mine and use all your money and or maybe go into debt to do so. What you want to argue is that this isn't a merger of true equals their assets ratios aren't 1-1 which again is debatable depending on how you view things, but you would be technically be correct in saying that their asset ratios are not 1-1. The reason being that no two companies would have 1-1 asset ratios it is basically an impossibility for two different companies to have 1-1 asset ratios because they're two different companies my point being why does this matter?
This doesn't discount the value in merging just because the asset ratios are not 1-1. The asset ratios could be .8 to 1.2 and or .9 to 1.1 as long as the asset ratios are close enough and it overall benefits the company as a whole. If the merger causes growth beyond the asset ratio deficits, then it's still a good deal. For example if the combined entities add to a total of 2; then as separate entities, lets say that red5 is worth .8 or .9 and SLR is worth 1.1 or 1.2; but when combined the overall pool of resources goes from 2 to 2.5; then while one has less assets than the other by combining together you have a larger pool of resources equating in Red5 bringing 1.1 or 1.2 and SLR bringing 1.3 or 1.4 to the table. If this is the case would you still say the merger is a bad deal?
This is basically what is happening you are acquiring a 200k oz gold mine for 0 upfront cost and will now become a 400k oz gold mining company with 500mil+ in cash. With 500mil+ in cash and assets to facilitate debt they I assume they could easily become a 600k oz gold miner if they chose to do so. If anyone has any ACTUAL facts of why this is a bad idea to merger I would be glad to have my points refuted, but so far everyone just keeps bringing up the same points and I keep re explaining my points in different ways over and over again as people clearly do not seem to understand what I'm trying to say and bring back the same boring old points of gold go up we have more money blah blah blah at least bring up something like share dilution or something else so I can at least refute it and say hey well it's not a capital raise you're receiving assets = to the share dilution so technically on paper it's not a share dilution at all.
Honestly I only created an account because it seems the negative sentiment here is overwhelming and no one seems to understand the value of a merger and the points everyone seems to have seem to be along the lines of we got more money... Yes and? like how is that a point to refute a merger? I don't understand if you were to say hey they're a leaking ship that is about to sink we don't want to assume unserviceable debt on a company that makes negative revenue then okay yeah totally agree don't waste 100mil + on a negative generating asset. In the case of a positive generating asset that requires no maintenance on your side? Your cash did not go down even if you merge with red you still have 500mil in the bank and a higher debt facility than you did prior to the merge you actually have MORE potential cash than you did before.
Saying stuff like on the books their asset value is = to or around ours but I don't like the way they measure that because of XYZ so therefore their asset value is not equal to ours like mate if you're concerned about this; then can you at least wait for the independent expert to assess and go from there?? Why do you even need to voice a concern about this for the 50th time before we even have the information, apparently we need to make a judgement on this and push for a no vote despite the fact that you don't even have the facts yet on asset values.
For some reason most of the people pushing for a no vote uses this as part of their core argument that their assets are unbalanced like are they? If you're saying gold prices went up so cash value went up in SLR then guess what you're also saying reserves value in Red5 went up by the same amount as there reserves since they are measured in gold; which could be used to facilitate debt with hedges at gold prices at $3800 but wait it's probably a bad idea to hedge at an ATH right? If they did that you'd probably cry out in anger despite gold prices being what 90% higher than $2000. (The irony here of Red5 literally hedging of an ATH of $2600 which was the previous ATH ((2022)) which was a 30% increase from the previous ATH (((2020))) of $2000 is not lost on me) either way this would mean that their primary ability to borrow more would be higher as their total asset value goes up with the price of gold...
The potential of the merger is that you create value beyond what each individual company can create...Let me ask you if you didn't merge the company what are the odds of SLR becoming a 600k oz gold producing company in the near future with its current assets? I would personally say the odds of this happening is 0 without another offer or a merger by another company that most likely will also not have 1-1 asset ratios.
Now let me ask you the same question but if a merger happened; what are the odds of SLR + Red5 becoming a 600k oz gold producing company in the near future with its current assets? I would say with 400k oz gold produced already and 500mil+ in cash and debt facilities that are growing with the price of gold then I would say the odds of them doing being able to this are ??? you tell me.
Whether they choose to do this or something else I do not know but their opportunities for growth expand exponentially with this merger.If you have an actual reason for why they shouldn't become a bigger (+200k gold oz produced) and bigger (500mil cash+ to expand) company and expand growth; please tell me why.
It feels like the no voters are very stuck on the minor details of this deal and not looking at the bigger picture of the potential value of a merger. I don't have enough money in this to be this triggered by you people, the only reason I'm even arguing this at this point is because I feel like you're all wrong and that I'm right...
In the first place I only decided to make an account because for some reason NO ONE was mentioning why a merger might have good potential value and everyone was just keeps using the same points that are not even a good reason to vote no to the merger. It's basically become an echo chamber of people that have no idea why they're even voting no they just say vote no cause everyone else is saying vote no. Does anyone actually have anything to refute my points mentioned above? I don't believe anyone does because they're literal facts and unfortunately for the no voters you cannot refute literal facts with opinions.
SLR Price at posting:
$1.38 Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)
