RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Information SourceI think I understand management's thinking on this. Let me know if I'm on a tangent.
If managementr keeps their nose (crossout) balance sheet clean, amasses some cash in the bank, minor shareholders want them to pay it back - they find it hard to evaluate airy-fairy projects like Mengapur and (gasp) Oz. It is true for Monument; it is true for Carl Icaan vs Apple Computer.
On the other hand those with little interest in running the company, but with a lot of plans for the cash, attempt to unseat the incumbents by means such as yakking at them and proposing an alternative slate of directors, and why not --there's no cost and there's all that cash which they desparately need (crossout), could do a better job of handling (crossout), feel is only rightful for the shareholders to appropriate.
If you're incumbent mgmt, and if you believe that the company could put the money to better uses than giving it back, and if you feel that your first job is to stay in business and this means keeping the company's stash but the cash attracts a run on your company from both ends you would...
...create a poison pill of the cash by re-investing it in future projects, where the cash would be hard to get at, duck, and take the flack which you will receive. This is what they've done.
Operating gold mines that have been producing for barely three years (even steadily) do not return money to shareholders with dividends and usually don't try to buy their own shares back.