RE: RE: Comment on BNN today...
This is my personal opinion only. Do your own dd:
The situation with MGO has gone beyond the fate of TRE. Now it is a credibility issue: Who is the supplier with which the $100 million deal has been struck? How reliable is that vendor? Has it been done at arms length? Whether TRE will come out guilty or not, will have a minimal and a passing effect on the valuation of MGO, I believe.
The two major suppliers in Russia, have both denied a deal with MGO. Of course, it is possible that a smaller or unknown supplier is the vendor; but then it raises the question of Why? And, why wasn't a tender floated? Afterall it is not "my daddy's" company, it is a public company, and the CEO is answerable to the Board of Directors, who in turn are answerable to the shareholders!
From Reuters:
Silvinit SILV.MM, Russia's leading potash miner, said it haD not entered into any agreement to supply Potash Export Co.
"Being one of the two Russian potash producers, Silvinit states it is neither the establisher nor stakeholder of Potash Export Company," it said in a statement.
"Furthermore, Silvinit has made no agreements with Migao Corporation as well as Potash Export Company."
Silvinit exports potash through the International Potash Co (IPC) and Agrofert trading companies.
Number two producer Uralkali (URKAq.L) issued a similar statement.
"Uralkali has made no agreements with Migao Corporation as well as Potash Export Company," it said.
For full story:
https://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/uralkali-silvinit-migao-idUSLDE72H1SO20110318