RE:RE:Rooster Hillpsych01 wrote: Don't know if it's you saying this or you're quoting:
Further, it is up to investors to consider whether they want to have any part of the Newco Spinco in their portfolio, including Rooster Hill, and check their own ESG ethical compass.
Whoever wrote it probably should know what posters here think they should do with it, me included. Not here, take that drivel to code pink site somewhere. But thanks. IMO
Not knowing what the consensus of this Board is on the spun out Newco, and I am not so sure that you speak for the entire board in any event (as Bobofet once observed about your posts "so much hate here") you have stated your "me included" analytical position as: SpinCo starts with a 10:1, does what all desperate reverse situations do, goes down, reverses again maybe again and is sold for scrap as the insiders skim whatever they can in the process
So, since you hypothesise that Newco will be, after consolidation and gutting, "sold for scrap", what company have you concluded or do you propose would want to add such "scrap" items as Rooster Hill and others located in that "socialist country" to their portfolio of corporate projects?
On its face, a company that does, does not seem to follow a wise "derisked" investing strategy. But then again, there was Argonaught in your portfolio, so what's there to learn?
By your acidic scorn, you have eliminated as potential purchasers any major corporation that has ESG policies (pinko socialist wokers -- or wonkers -- that they are, conducting business from the fringes of the "code pink sites", like AGI and their https://esg2022.alamosgold.com/
), which leaves you to hoist your sales signs in the gravel pits for the unregulated "leach baby leach" crowd willing to drink the purple cyanide from the big Koolaid jug.
Or watch the projects nationalised and turned into theme parks, nature preserves or code pink sites.
Cue the flames