Still deliberating...Hi all, I've sat and digested the circular, the meeting, and have had a long chat with Anna. I suggest that before we derail the whole Tenor concept, disinterested shareholders should individually or in groups reach out to Anna to discuss the particular history of how we have come to be where we are...she will be happy to speak frankly, and has told me she will be experiencing the dilution herself.
If you pull up my posts going back to spring 2014, you'll see that things were as I said at each of those points in time...sadly, some of my recommendations to the company, like Larry's, were not heeded, but overall I have been given a faithful presentation of corporate events and have passed key bits of that along on this board. Anna can tell you the details of how we got to where we are, but here we be. And where "here" is option 1 or 2. There is no option 3, except probably Tenor pulling out and our subsequent bankruptcy.
So be careful, folks. By all means express your frustration and anger, but speak to Anna directly to get a detailed breakdown of the past and the potential consequences of today's decisions. Then make a more-informed and cooler decision. You all shot Oldtimer full of holes for merely suggesting taking a cooler look at things, but that might have been the only time I've agreed with him ;)
Based on the published circular, one would think option 2 is preferrable...as I stated prior to the meeting both on this board and to Anna herself by email. I sat in on the conference call, submitted my questions, and got answers, such as they were. Since then, I have been silent, reading everyone's posts, and waiting to speak to the company for a fuller explanation. In the circular and subsequent PR from the shareholders' consultant companies, the recommendation of option 1 was certainly paternalistically presented and not particularly informative, but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong.
There is no question the disclosure related to option 2 was practically nonexistent in the circular, and still wanting in the conference call. So here is a simplified version of what will happen with option 2. It is not complete, nor definitive, so contact Anna yourself for more details.
We would end up with $20 million US debt, at an unspecified but painful interest rate, certainly not one at 2.5 percent like the $7 million in option 1. The assets would be encumbered, rather than Tenor having an equity interest. Plus other, "soft" considerations such as giving the Colombian Government an edge in the arbitration and affecting neighbors who also have their problems advancing their projects. Not too much could be said in public about "soft" considerations, both regarding regulatory rules re speculation and the fact that Colombian officials were undoubtedly dialed in too (and probably reading this board), but call Anna and she will be quite forthright. In short, it is a wild card, and though I am not yet comfortable with option 1 over option 2, I am seriously considering that supporting Anna is our best shot. As stated in the call, Tenor's participation made the two main shareholders (you know who they are) step up and cover a $4.3 million US shortfall in the amount required to get us through arbitration that sealed the deal with Tenor. Failing that, we were done...toasted.
I especially would ask, speaking as a significant "disinterested" shareholder, that the 39 percent pledging to vote no speak directly to Anna before casting said votes or stirring up a legal hornets' nest. Right now that scenario would probably make Tenor pull the plug...and we all whistle down the drain, because we need a concrete funding source to move forward, unless there is a plan behind that 39 percent for such funding, but how they can pull that rabbit out of their hats, I don't know. I'd sure like to hear it if there is.
The circular has been a PR disaster for the company, and couldn't have come across worse, but do speak in person before deciding.
Good luck, all. We're gonna need it...and we oughtta save some of our invective for the Colombian government, who put us in this mess. If we win the arbitration, we still have significant property...lose and we're done. Personally, I'm for moving forward. I agree with you there, OT. I have been in this thing since '96, and faithfully averaged down after the Paramo. Tho the 3 to 5 years longer sounds like a lot, being dead in the water right now is something I would relish far less, both from the point of view of losing the investment, and letting the Colombians off the hook!
Eaglegold