GREY:NMKEF - Post by User
Comment by
Luna2020on Jul 20, 2020 8:56pm
146 Views
Post# 31293621
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:who will decide (who will be the next owners)
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:who will decide (who will be the next owners)TTT, it is feasible to get a $1. They bidder (e.g. ALB or SQM) could pay $850 million in stock (non-cash), so we have their stock instead. An NPV of $2.5 billion includes the negative cash flow of an investment of $1 billion to get everything operational and the $200-$300 million in positive cashflow generated every year. So, $850 million in stock to get $2.5 billion back in Net Present Value (NPV) is feasible and a steal for the strategic bidder (acquirer). The question is how is how heated is the bidding.
This is why I was very happy once GB left. Then an outright sale was on the table. Financing get vultures like Pallinghurst and IQ. So, lets not root for financing and a re-list on the TSX. This is why I didn't sign up with the NMX shareholder group. They are doing some good things but they have to be favouring an sale instead.
If the auction is setup properly, the highest bid gets shared with the next highest bidders. They have a time window to beat it. If they do, the rest have a time window to beat the new price. And so, forth until the rest of the bidders give up. Typically, this is done blind so that there is no collusion (price fixing). So, a bit of delay can work in the shareholders favour.
Charlene
P.S Luna is my dog's name and has 20/20 vision ... :)