If NGN succkered RD to merge with it, what consolidationof new 134 million shares of NGN, would have to happen?
RD is 32 cents or so, and 92 million shares outstanding. In NGN they would be jumping to 92 million + 134 million equals = 226 million shares, and would demand some consolidation of NGN's 134 million shares or why merge with NGN.
Why indeed?
Probably both would have to take a shares' haircut, if more so NGN's 134 million shares.
RD's gold mine in columbia goes into production next year.
https://www.321gold.com/editorials/moriarty/moriarty052715.html
But if gold is dead as the recent Economist Magazine article says, then the only reason to merge with NGN is to use NGN's big management names and money people contacts they can attract, to get as much from that in promoting of NGN, to minimize the loss from the respective former gold mines.
But a Stockman site article doesn't think the Economist Magazine article is to be trusted and is a contrarian indicator of what to do instead - ie buy gold, and by analogy for CRK, don't merge with NGN.
From
David Stockman site, looks at the economist magazine’s article
gold is dead, and dissects it point by point how it’s wrong.
What is interesting about such Economist Magazine like articles, on the gold era is over, is the articles come at the top of the stock market bubble and bottom of the lull in the gold market era, that is not over. It looks like it is over and sort of clear sailing from here, but that is only if you look superficially at the world around us.
Appearances are very deceiving!
ie
Why Gold Is Looking Better——The Economist Pronounced It “Buried”
(who has a long bad track record on pronouncements of market conditions)
by Pater Tenebrarum
https://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/why-gold-is-looking-better-the-economist-pronounced-it-buried/
“ … the (Economist) magazine has one of the very best records as a contrary indicator whenever it comments on markets – (ie it’s recent gold is dead and buried article
https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21650189-russia-buying-gold-few-others-are-buried ) . If a market trend makes the cover page of the Economist (especially - which the Economist doesn’t dare do in the case of the 5000 year long gold as real basis of money in the world), it is almost as good as if it were making the front page of the (establishment’s) Mirror or the Daily Mail (newspapers). If you do the exact opposite of what an Economist cover story prediction indicates you should do, you can actually end up being set for life.
A famous example was the (Economist’s 1999) “Drowning in Oil” (article) cover story (analogous to saying gold is dead in 1999 or analogous to saying gold is dead now), which was published about two months after a multi-decade low in the oil price had been established, literally within two trading days of the slightly higher retest low. The article predicted that crude oil would soon fall from then slightly over $10/bbl. to a mere $5/bbl. – a not inconsiderable decline of more than 50%. Instead it began to soar within a few days of the article’s publication and essentially didn’t stop until it had risen nearly 15-fold – a gain of almost 1,400%.”