The vote for a new RE, receivers preferring Gunns, is going ahead. The announcement is 336 pages long. If it takes that much paperwork to change the RE then GTP were hopelessly lost issuing prospectuses just a couple of dozen pages in length.
I'll read it to understand it, but in the end I have simple needs: To complete this investment and get out with the smallest losses.
If I have to vote for Gunns, PPPL, IWC or anyone else then so be it. My individual control over this situation is practically non existent so I'll do what I can. If the Gunns option is voted down then do I think the receivers will advance alternatives? No. Why would they? A negative result will be the catalyst and excuse required to shut the projects down. Sell them off as is or harvest what's there early, either way investors will lose a lot more.
As pointed out by savemytrees.com, if more than one option is voted on then none will get the required votes. If the receivers prefer Gunns then fine. If they'd said PPPL then fine. As long as one gets over the line. Do I really know if Gunns are managed any better or worse than others? No. I do know they're in the industry, which is more than you could say about GTP when they started this. Would I vote against Gunns because of a pulp mill in Tassie or anything else? No. A vote against Gunns for any personal reason doesn't hurt Gunns, just us.
Not interested in owning land, the complexities and future uncertainties of carbon trading, biomass fuels or anything else. Just want this over with, just want a new RE so the projects aren't disposed of. Preferably one that can do the job without taking too big a share.
GTP Price at posting:
12.0¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
