GREY:ARGEF - Post by User
Comment by
infoseeker99on Aug 28, 2010 8:10am
![](https://assets.stockhouse.com/kentico-cms/0342-00/images/Sprite.svg#id_Post_Views_Icon)
336 Views
Post# 17392443
RE: RE: MineralFields
RE: RE: MineralFields
I am not disputing the metallurgy, or the wish to go to production. I only bring up that Fancamp has a market Cap of
21 million, this in spite of the fact they had several amazing properties, (check their website) including the RGX property In spite of these properties Peter Smith has done nothing to increase shareholder value. The same Peter Smith on Argex board.
You say Fancamp would not sell out cheap, but what they ended up with for their stable of properties is like getting some
"magic" beans for the cow. Please read the old FWR, SPQ and KWG postings and you will see the FWR and SPQ shareholders said they would never sell. In the end they had no choice
The Fancamp shares along with MineralFields would add up to about 25% of the company.
add in the recent PP shares and the retail shareholders may not end up with much say.
Cliffs has a market cap of 8 billion, I dont think it would be much of an effort to take out Fancamp with a cap of 21 million even if it were only for Magpie and its iron ore property which is in the area of their current Wabush mine.
Lets be Clear I have stated that I am impressed with the Current RGX management and the speed at whch they move, and I dont doubt the metallurgy, so lets not change the subject, on that, we agree.
I would suggest that you do some research on FWR and SPQ and KWG. See what Mineral Fields sold their stake in SPQ for as compared to the valuations and what shareholders expected. See what happend when KWG turned against CLF. RGX shareholders are not immune from getting screwed, if others end up with more votes, no matter how good management is. This scenario is playing out with KWG right now.
Lets ask management to make sure that we have the tightest shareholder rights plan possible, that protects all shareholders, especially retail.
IMHO