questions for matt hogan, page-38

My feel is that this is not going to happen: just a gut feel based on what Joel, Bungy, FM have been saying if that can be relied upon. Generally they are fairly accurate in these things as we know.

Here's an extension of my argument as to why I believe the directors to be the weak link in this whole equation.

1. The top twenty own at least fifty percent of the company, including the new substantial holder.
2. It's pretty reasonable to assume one would think that not all of these holders are looking for a quick out.
3. As Joel stated correctly the other day, resource size is not the only driver of stock value: the ability to scale up quickly will be a key driver, and possibly bringing a JV partner may be one way to unlock value more quickly than a go-it-alone model.
4. If you were a director with a stock that you knew was closer to $10 in value than the $3 we're possibly looking at in a takeover wouldn't you be doing everything to realise the $10 rather than the $3?

Wouldn't you be working out who were the weak holders and picking up their stocks for $3 - through an MBO, or through bringing on board other instos or whatever other means might be your disposal- to stabilise the register?

What have all the recent overseas roadshows been all about? Hopefully, not meeting the Queen. Sure, she's a nice lady.

Yet, all the mail we're getting currently, albeit indirectly, yet, I believe which is fairly reliable, is that there's going to be a takeover, and it's a done deal. So be prepared for $3 and let's work on identifying the next ten bagger investment.

Which brings me back to what I'm saying. If these directors were fair dinkum about taking this ship through to production, we'd be hearing talk of the MBO you referred to yesterday Kwaidan or to new friendly substantial holders, etc.

The problem is, all the mail we're getting is that we're not, and all that mail is coming from people in the know.....

BUSH