RE: SST Q4 financials
RMARC asked:
"SST has always released it's quarterly results about two months after the quarter ended. However, SST's Q4 2008 results , which should have been released in February, have not yet been released. Could it be that the results were very positive & that management thinks SST shareholders would vote NO to the SLW takeover because shareholders could easily determine that SST management sold out it's shareholders by giving away the SST at such a cheap valuation: .185 shares of SLW for each SST share?"
The answer to your first question is no. Silverstone already reported on February 5
https://www.silverstonecorp.com/news/index.php?&content_id=99
that total sales of silver for the 4th quarter was 437,000 ounces of silver, which was not much higher than the average of sales for the previous 3 quarters. Furthermore, the 437,000 ounces was much lower than the first quarter sales will turn out to be, since only in the first quarter are there the new sales coming from the Minto mine.
They also said in this same news release of Feb. 5: "Audited results for the year ended December 31, 2008 will be reported in April 2009." which implies that 4th quarter results will be announced at the same time - in April, 2009. This means we can expect these results shortly, but they should not affect sentiment of shareholders one way or another since the number of silver ounces sold (437,000) is already known (Feb. 5) and that number isn't particularly special.
As for the second question, I don't know the answer. But your reasoning why Darren Pylot "wants this merger to happen" is flawed. In order for shareholders to have the opportunity to decide whether a merger with Silver Wheaton is in their best interests or not, management of Silverstone and Capstone
had to agree to the merger. If they did not agree to the merger, Wheaton would not have agreed to the deal, so there would be no deal, there would have been no announcement and we would presently have a stock price of $1.00 (which is where the price was at a couple of days before the announcement) instead of $1.75. Furthermore, Silverstone management owns a lot of shares and options in Silverstone and so would want the price of Silverstone to be as high as possible.
Was this a fully valued offer? Of course not. But it was the best offer that Silverstone could get out of Wheaton. Wheaton, like any buyer, cannot be forced to pay more than they choose to pay. But if the offer is judged as "not fair enough" by over 33.33% of Silverstone shareholders, the deal is off, and I doubt Wheaton will want to take that chance since they know darned well what a deal they are getting. That is why I have felt for a few weeks now that an improved offer is coming. Wheaton also risks another bidder entering the picture at the last moment. That is another gamble they are taking if they don't improve the offer. If it is true that what Wheaton is paying for Silverstone is below "low" and is judged to be practically stealing, we can count on another bidder to join the action, causing a bidding war and resulting in a higher price for Silverstone that shareholders will accept. All this is true only because management accepted the announced deal in the first place. The deal gives you, me, and the rest of SST shareholders (including institutions) the right to decide what is fair, and no doubt caused much more new attention to be given to Silverstone by other bidders. Management voted "yes" to get the price up faster than otherwise (so far, from $1.00 to the current $1.75, though the stock has almost reached $2.00 recently), entice new bidders, and to give you the right later to decide for yourself whether to vote "yes" or "no". Especially in this sense it is "fair" and makes sense. It is not over yet. I am still expecting to see some new action in SST resulting in a higher price (admittedly, I may be in the minority and am impatient too).
tooclassy