cactus - many thanks for the counter-perspective. it's always good to consider the other side, and of course, there are always risks, in investing as in life.the main point i was trying to convey, however, was that a close reading of management actions and the 23sep announcement in particular, combined with many years of experience in situations like this suggest most all the risks you mention are far, far less likely to occur at this point in the game. yes, the price is somewhat higher than a few weeks ago, reflecting this, to an extent, but nowhere near enough given the 'between the lines' reality here. to reiterate:- both the Thai govt and the company know what was said/presented at the Singapore arbitration, but we (investors/the public) do not. they obviously have superior information. both of these parties have agreed to delay the release of the award, to find a negotiated settlement. Obviously the Thai government must have sanctioned the content of KCN's PR on Sep23 (with all the details) - meaning, quite strongly, that this is the base case outcome. i am unaware of another possible reading of events that makes sense.- with this as context, basically all the other risks you mention are either moot, or very, very low probability outcomes at this stage. Most all your other points are (valid) logistical/operational hurdles that made life difficult for KCN in the past, but again - as per a reading the PR - these are all likely to be conditions of the negotiated agreement. if they weren't, KCN would just say 'give us the arbitration award then'. the very fact they arent saying this suggests to me new safeguards for their operations will be put in place.As for future government changes/enforceability of any award - future government changes in a semi-dodgy mining jurisdiction are simply a risk of doing business. that simply means the asset will have to be valued as per other 'dodgy regime' mining assets, with similar assets/situations. i would argue a fresh agreement after an extended negotiation derisks the proposition substantially. but even if you don't believe that, $1.2 is the wrong price - given how similar (or worse) mines in dodgier places are valued, by the market.As for enforceability of any award - this is far less an issue than you think. as i posited, simply being awarded a $750mm++ award (a number I am quite confident in) would be value additive to the current stock price, such is the implied discount at $1.2. for my purposes, I don't need the company to ever actually collect the award (even though I think they could easily sell such a claim to any number of specialist litigation funds or hedge funds, or petition the Australian government to seize assets on their behalf, which HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE in cases like this) - the market will reflect a likelihood of receiving value for this award such that the stock should be much higher than current.hope this helps.
Expand
(20min delay)