Well guess you don’t know a lot about “corporate golf” or...

Well guess you don’t know a lot about “corporate golf” or lending … first thing a lender wants to know is “what is the security” not “what is your repayment ability”. Whether you can repay or not is your problem. Whether the lender can take something of value and use it to recover their lending, should you not be able to repay is their problem and thus the first question to which they actually care about the response.

In this case, each day that passes the value of the LTR enterprise increases by the rate at which the mine is being developed to production status. Each day that passes the value of the security for a lending situation increases. Each day the attractiveness of being involved in lending to LTR increases from an asset security perspective. That doesn’t necessarily immediately translate to the value of the SP or MC due to other forces that play in the ASX market space (but which don’t play in the lending space).

The rate paid on the borrowing is partly relative to the ease with which the borrower has other options for the same funding. Here LTR has made clear it has a range of options some of which don’t involve the “banks”. In my view that is, on one level, about LTR making it clear the to the banks that if they want in on this reduced funding package they better act properly and reasonably because LTR has options.

But anyway - if you don’t know about “corporate golf” I guess your knowledge about corporate lending is equally questionable … but yet you offer your thoughts on the topic … why?

Thanks again for giving us the opportunity for these comments to be provided at HC.