RE:RE:more re. valuationScotch12 wrote:
Good post RJK, do you have an accounting background? I don't take the TD analyst seriously as he has, in my experience, always been behind the curve. However, the market clearly agrees with him (hence no premium to the initial offer). His point that there does not appear to be alternative bidders is a relevant one as that seems to be the case. In the two funds latest press release they said alternative options did not appear to have been explored by the trustees committee. However, we have yet to hear what those potential alternatives are. I suspect to receive fair value; we will have to win the two votes: then run the company with a proper board and improve cashflow. It is easy to say we can get 200 million in annual EBITA, but it has never happened. I hope it does, and we start getting great dividends then there will be no need to sell the asset. Just trying to be realistic.
I spoke with one of the independant directors on Tuesday. He confirmed to me that Glencore was the ONLY takeout option that this board explored. He said they "discused" bankruptcy as well as "discussed" raising $100M with paradigm.
I appreciated the call, but it was apparant to me that these independant directors were anything but. He was able to parrot Glencore's talking points, but it as quite obvious what he was doing; he was reading a script.
The fact of the matter is we really have no idea how much money this smelter does/can generate. As unitholders, we arent even allowed to know the terms of hte contracts that we have Glencore. And if we did know the terms, whose favor do yuo think they woudl be weighted in?
The only option is to turf the independant board and elect a new one. Hopefully, in a year, we will have more clarity on the business we are invested in and the options available to us. Europes smelters are not coming back on line in a year (if ever) so the concentrate market will be oversupplied (god for us). There is literally ZERO reason to sell into Glencore's offer.