RE:For Those Who See Conspiracy Theories Around Every CornerGL is looking at the transaction as will SBB shareholders lose money. Simple answer, for the majority who have a cost basis south of $1.50 USD they will not lose money. GL, in their simplistic view, then signs off on the deal as being "beneficial.
Your (and GL's) logic is flawed however. Let's say you invest $10k into an investment that should easily return 50% (it not much higher) over the course of a few years. Then, all of a sudden a third party shows up to buy out your position for a piddly 5% return. Along comes Glass Lewis proclaiming how this is a great deal for you since you'll earn a positive return.
No, this is a bad deal since your returns are a paltry amount of what you expect. Yes, I get that B2 will rise with a rising price of gold (a rising tide lifts all boats), but SERIOUS investors in the PM junior sphere (which it is painfully obvious Glass Lewis are not) are not interested in piddly-annie returns, we want 5 baggers or more. Your leverage with SBB is much, much higher on a standalone basis than it is tied down to a mid-tier or a major.
This is what all the apologists for B2, Glass Lewis, etal don't understand: we didn't invest in a junior for piddly returns, if that is what we wanted we could've invested directly into the majors themselves.
We invested in SBB to take advantage of the upside the junior provided in a renewed gold bull market. Along comes Bruce and his buddies and they pulled the rug right out from underneath everybody. Dirty, sneaky, underhanded tactics if you ask me. The insiders enriching themselves at the expense of the investors.
If Bruce was concerned about shareholder value (isn't that his job by the way?!) he would've entertained offers for a buyout or even solicited the majors back when SBB was trading well over $2 USD a share. Just calling a spade a spade here, he did us all wrong and you know it whether or not you are willing to admit it.