Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.

SPDR Portfolio Short Term Treasury ETF T.SST.U


Primary Symbol: SPTS

The investment seeks to provide investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance of the Bloomberg Barclays 1-3 Year U. The fund invests at least 80%, of its total assets in the securities comprising the index and in securities that the Adviser determines have economic characteristics that are substantially identical to the economic characteristics of the securities that comprise the index. The index is designed to measure the performance of short term (1-3 years) public obligations of the U.S. Treasury.


ARCA:SPTS - Post by User

Post by yoyoyo9992on Mar 12, 2009 4:40pm
383 Views
Post# 15840889

My take - Positive

My take - Positive

I have been a shareholder for some time, and thus feel aware of all the issues that went into this decision.

For one, I believe it non-sensical to be against this deal simply because the stock was $3.50 a year ago.  The world has dramatically changed since then, with the TSX-V down 75% and the average junior mining stock down more.

There are several reasons why SST's multiple was so low compared to SLW, first and foremost being the copper exposure.  Yes, I know they've hedged, but in this environment many don't even trust the hedges due to counterparty risk.  And still others actually believe copper will fall below the $0.70/lb or so that would put all of CS's mines out of business due to global depression fears.

Additionally, I believe the issue of "arms length" between CS and SST was likely to become an issue at some point.  Whether or not it is now, I don't know.  But the bigger CS and SST got, the more likely it was to be flagged, IMO.  Not to mention, shareholders may at some point have demanded new management layers, given the growing size of the two companies.

Also, as much as I like the thought of SST going to the moon, the risks of global economic and stock market meltdowns remain as high as ever, and the thought of being absorbed into the much larger, more diversified (less copper) SLW was too much to resist. 

And once you see what is being created, it is hard to be upset.  SLW is now being transformed into a powerhouse monster, with a much larger, more diverse production profile, a massively improved balance sheet, and an essentially monopoly hold on the silver stream market.  And given that it is now $6/sh vs. $21/sh last year, and now a much bigger, stronger company, there is no reason to believe that with surging PM prices SLW itself cannot go to the moon. 

This deal is massively accretive to SLW, and I'd be shocked if the analysts are not falling over themselves recommending SLW in the coming weeks.  In fact, it is now the largest silver miner in the world (by production), and likely will be even more of a go to investment than before.

As for CS, I don't own it but if I did I'd be thrilled.  They now have a big, liquid stake in SLW that they can eventually sell, which may in fact turn out to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars in time.  And they still have the relationships with SST/SLW if they want to make further deals.

<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>