Sunday Times, devil, M&A details, question for TRQ CEO @H1
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-13/turquoise-hill-surges-on-report-rio-tinto-may-take-miner-private That article is interesting and probably a deduction of what the journalist SAW and his reading BUT there is something that DOES NOT STICK! RIO cannot have hired GS if trying to get a "consortium" bid on 49%! If RIO is NOT keeping its distances, it becomes a CONCERTED PARTY TRANSACTION, aka same as RIO's bid with ALL the constraints! TRQ MIGHT be the one supposed to have hired GS! But under what pretext? Simple, have seen similar BS investment banking mandate before. TRQ might have hired GS to "considering that TRQ current share price does not reflect the unique opportunity TRQ and OT represents, to explore ideas in order to help TRQ share price trade closer to its fair value for the sake of all TRQ minority shareholders who have been so patient for years" Such a wild-goose-hunting mandate would stick, enable GS to start preliminary work on behalf of TRQ and ...then, GS, ...on its own, :), would suggest a reverse enquiry bid, proposing to interested parties to bid for the 49% of TRQ at a price much higher than market and of course TRQ would be expected to cooperate with such initiative in line with the mandate! Of course, that would NOT be RIO's business :) :) Ok it sounds pretty like the hypocrites ball but from a M&A angle it would save RIO from many complications / constraints similar to a direct bid (it might not consider timely) and enable serious flexibility for the group of "friends of TRQ" to bid TRQ shares. One way to shed light on this: During post H1 TRQ conf call, just ask TRQ CEO if "TRQ has mandated GS to explore ideas in order to help TRQ share price trade closer to its fair value" Can a CEO of a listed company lie or toss such a question in a public forum from a TRQ shareholder or a research analyst from a big IB ? I think no. :) :)