Actually the reverse is true, by the Garlings significantly diluting their shareholding from 22% to 12% the share register was actually opened and would make a takeover a lot easier. In any case when you add the 10% shareholding of Ample Rise to what NG now has the total is still only 22% so there was no difference in the control by the two in combination versus what the Garlings held. I am not sure which way the Griffith family with a 10% stake in MCO would vote, but clearly they are a key factor in a takeover.
And who is to say how Ample Rise will play things in the future. In fact it has a stake in ensuring it can takeover MCO at the cheapest price possible (if it wanted to take it over), just like it got hold of the tenements and shares cheaply.
MCO's website shows the major shareholders as Nick Garling and related interests - 12% Chillee Limited - 11.5% Yarandi Investments (Griffith family) - 10.5% BBY Nominees (ie Ample Rise) - 9.9%
As regards locking in Ample Rise as a longer term investor by giving away two tenements, I say let's give the whole thing away and lock in more interests in MCO. How logical is that.
I have to say your post lacks reasoning or facts to back up your assertions, and is just grasping at straws. Or perhaps I got out of the wrong side of my bed this morning.
loki (I will try to give this topic a rest for now - too many posters just do not want to face facts).
MCO Price at posting:
45.0¢ Sentiment: LT Buy Disclosure: Held
