RE:Should've"Should've kept Inga assets and debt. The company was worth more as a speculation on rebounding prices than a company with a good balance sheet."
As we don't know the reason why Inga/Fireweed was sold apart from pure speculation, we cannot make an accurate observation or conclusion. Was it soley for mere debt redcution or is there more behind that decision. As i made my opinion quite clear on WHY it was done in previous posts, it must be confirmed by company mgmt at some point done the line. Like i mentioned before, if Kelt wanted to "fix" the balance sheet within reason and what would be deemed acceptable by the market then they didn't need to sell half of their production including thier prized racehorse at Inga/Fireweed. A small asset sale would have done the job, something like Charlie lake or some smaller property in Central alberta. A reduction of ~$400m in debt to ~200M would have been very acceptable. We know that and they MUST have known that as well. They aint dumb.
As for those worried for the sudden drop in the stock price, as i mentioned last week, there is a co-ordinated short attack on Canadian ep's since last week but it targeted to a specific group... the ONLY mid caps. Kelt is suffering more than anyone because of a double whammy, not only becuase of someone or some group stacking short postions on these companies but also from being walked down constantly by entity who probably has something to gain by whatever Kelt has planned for it's immediate future. The trading in the stock couldn't be more obvious of this, as this isn't normal selling but a targeted, constant & INTENTIONAL downward pressure.
Good luck to all..........