If I got my numbers closest to the pin, it's only because I relied on the details provided in the update announcements and did my additions and subtractions using just "one point of truth", as they say in finance-speak. The number-crunching exercise also serves to indirectly check and validate PLS management quality, transparency and integrity. Kudos to them.
Having thoroughly read today's updates on the POSCO JV and the Partnering Process, I can see why it takes time to finalise the arrangements or to walk away from the proposals. There are many complex scenarios/alternatives for deliberation under fiduciary duty of due diligence, which can only be properly performed in collaboration with careful reviews and analyses by the technical and financial teams. Such work would have been done in addition to their day-to-day responsibilities. For me, this is demonstration of high staff morale and dedication to PLS as employer. Btw, I researched glassdoor website for employee reviews (usually disgruntled/negatively skewed), but couldn't find any on PLS.
(Now that trolls have read this post dated 27 August 2019, and are alerted to glassdoor, there may well be a sudden flurry of reviews from disgruntled ex-employees with harsh comments against PLS management.)
Anyone frustrated by the "delays" probably has no experience in upper management roles that involve organisational restructures, large investment projects, or staff motivation and support. Probably also has no experience in liaising with boards of directors on matters of governance.
True, MacQ was appointed but they don't do their work pro-bono (their hourly rate wouldn't have been cheap). But they don't know the important operational details. A good BOD would have considered how much of the work was better off done in-house to reduce costs than to pay MacQ to learn the operational details and then to capture the data into MacQ specialised software templates to produce consultant recommendations. Because MacQ was in the role of consultant and not employee, those processed/translated/interpreted data would have become MacQ's intellectual property, not PLS'. Adds to their mergers and acquisitions intelligence database.
Furthermore, does the BOD want to disclose that much commercial in-confidence operational details to any investment banker? Having consultancy status does not equate to having free access to all aspects of PLS data or expertise. Think back to MacQ's unhelpful lithium forecast while it was consultant to PLS for the partnering process.
All the best to LT shareholders.
PLS Price at posting:
37.0¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)