News: AGO Australia's Atlas Iron names ex-Hancock executive CEO in board overhaul, page-52

Hancock have a whole different set of priorities . They see value, perhaps it is future port rights, which Atlas would have probably lost as they were not fully utilising them.

Hancock can also sit on an asset for years if need be and develope it if and when it suits. Atlas did not have that luxury as they had bills to pay. If they had announced doing nothing for 3 years the shareholders would have been up in arms.

Hancock have money to investigate cheaper transport options, so did MIN. Atlas didn't.

Also studies show a lot of takeovers cost more than they benefit but hindsight is a great thing . Perhaps that will be the case here. BHP and RIO have lost billions on poor takeovers in recent years and they are experts.

The assets of a company can be worth very different amounts to different stakeholders depending on their goals, finances, synergies, etc.

It would be good to see Atlas develop. The reality is that the company needs cash and a takeover is the only way that would occur.

Opinion only DYOR.