RE: RE: RE: RE: Thanks are in order.. Elmo...Go take a look at Countrygent's comments on the SSL board (if you haven't already) and I think you will agree that Nolan & Co. must have - or at least should have - spent a great deal of DD time on this deal. I've been persuaded - by you among others - that it was a good decision, if a bit of a toss of the dice. But the issue isn't the potential reward, it's the reward/risk. It doesn't matter how high the numerator is if the denominator (or for that matter, the complexity) is above one's personal comfort zone, as it apparently is for some posters.
As for Rio Tinto, it may have a lot sunk into this property. It might even be a make-it-or-break-it proposition. But that's not necessarily reassuring. The sunk cost fallacy applies to companies as well as individuals. Big companies can make big mistakes. After all, Rio just posted the biggest loss in the company's history:
https://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/831b1bd2-7669-11e2-ac91-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2L86Ej8yF
Excuse me for playing devil's advocate. I have no argument with any of your logic or numbers, which are as usual, impeccable. The point is nobody can categorically say this was a "good" or a "bad" deal, it depends on one's investing parameters. Personally, even if I thought this was a horrible, terrible, very bad deal, it would fall far short of making me reconsider my investment in SSL or SND. In any case, I think management gave fair advance warning of its new direction. Those who are uncomfortable with it should simply look for another place to put their money.