KG,Sounds like you already have a good grasp on his background....

KG,
Sounds like you already have a good grasp on his background.

NF is paid very well and would not be my first choice. Shareholder apathy means many holders won't care and virtually nil will act, therefore NF likely to stick around.
Keep this in mind, as many directors know this.

Pro's
The progression of the flagship project encountered issues as all projects do.
Generally the issues have been handled competently.

Issues included,
Strike,
- resolved well with contract
- made good use of down time whilst strike was in effect.
Bondholders,
- put in place debt cover, albeit at cost
Operation Issues,
- quite a few, however handled well, all said.

Con's
- The early days in GDO with BS production targets.
- Absolutely appalling handling of U1.
- Legacy from U1 burdens GDO in a number of ways, rightly or wrongly.
- His package is rich, 1.1M means we need to process massive amounts of ore to pay him alone!
- IMO, strong player with too much reach. (as you seem to have noted)

Neutral
- Bondholder,
A good CEO should be in touch with the pulse of bondholders for many reasons, if possible. The cover cost us from memory was a few million dollars and required because bondholder consensus was unknown.
In his shoes, i would have placed cover regardless.
- Whitewater
We bought a bankrupt shell and gave away 30% of net worth in megamine for the shell.
We gained a listed vehicle in return.
There is some value in fencing off assets for new listing etc.
For me the deal was poor and unwarranted, for others giving away 30% was worth it.
What i didn't like, was the shell was heading to bankruptcy fast and low and behold there was a director sitting on both sides of the deal, GDO and whitewater.
There is normally a solicitor on every board, so I can sleep at night knowing that the deal was fair and at arms length!?

At the end of the day only you can make the call to invest or not. At least you have done your homework, good work!

My 2c and worth a bit less.
Mav