Charl Your base argument doesnt stack up for the following reasons:
The GGP deal was to give them 500m shares (the deal appears silent on cash as well) GGP even today is trading at 2.6c versus VIL 2.3c.
VIL are to issues around 370m but excludes the QPN deal which is 180m shares trading @ 1.4c ( somewhere around say 95m shares in GGP) and Silverwood extremely difficult to value that. So roughly the deal is similar.
However to achieve tradeability in equity why not merge with QPN where you hold 19.95% and passed over some assets on 8 July 2010. You would control the company and have control over what happens. The using security etc will still be in play but in fact you could have a strong shareholder position with a tightly held share.
Pass get nothing more from VIL that they had not already in the QPN deal just more FP. How can a 10% stake with 800m shares make a huge difference unless its more than major.
If they dont know what the value is under the ground at FP than no way can I see them trading their company for something they already have a decent stake in unless the sum of the parts is greater than the individual so having dropped relatively 1.8% in FP but controlling it suggests that the FP component of the valuation is greater relative to the rest. A controlling interest would normally have a premium placed upon it.
The fact that they are relatively the same - a little bit less suggests that it is exactly the VIL FP asset that they have to place a higher value on. Bongo may be good but can it overshadow FP???
VIL Price at posting:
2.3¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
