RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Michael Smedley on
I had asked about this and this is my understanding. There is a Youtube I'll try to find where Nolan Watson mentions a bit of Tweaking, that Kewl2 mentioned, on the Wheaton Model, Positive Tweaks visible in some clauses added to the Agreements we've seen. I noticed there isn't a "Cookie Cutter" Model. Each one is "Tailor Made" to fit the Company we Partner with.
The reason to do the reverse was to get listed in the US/AMEX and made an "Invest-able" stock for those, Funds, Insti.s, and Money Mangers, who have unable to invest in Sandstorm Gold.
The TSX has proposed some changes that could limit a company's ability to fund an acquisition and how it does. Though I say acquisition it might be applied to a partial piece, like the types of Deals/Agreements that Sandstorm uses routinely. Placing restrictions on creative methods of financing, the types of clauses that could be entered into an Agreement, having Stages, as we have seen, with certain lines to cross before the next Truanch is given to the company...a big part of Sandstorm's Model and Growth, and able to do on the Venture Ex. We'll see how these proposals resolve, but for me personally, I'd like to see Sandstorm maintain the most creative Agreements ability, because so far I have noted, as have others, they keep Sandstorm Shareholders very well protected.
At this stage Sandstorm is happy to stay on the Venture Exchange, a reason over and above the costs associated with a move to the TSX "Big Board".