RE:RE:RE:RE:negotiationthey could look at it as a merger rather than an acquisition. goldx needs the cash and gcm management team to build the mine. without gcm, goldx would still be diluted from acquiring cash funding but still need to find a management team with experience in that location. with gcm continual cash generation goldx can avoid that funding dilution and gain all the assets of gcm. they make a good match.
gcm holds a lot of goldx shares and
even more aris shares. from gcm latest presentation, gcm holds $203 mil in equity investments which is already a lot higher than goldx market cap. why should goldx shares be more valuable than the aris shares gcm holds when aris has almost the same number of oz as goldx and aris is fully funded?
taking out the cash and equity investments, gcm (segovia) with 200k oz production is valued at cad$94 mil. if the goldx peanut gallery wants 0.75 and gain all those aris and goldx shares too, then from the point of view of gcm holders that is grand larceny.
Heywood_Silvers wrote: So, the peanut gallery believes that we are looking at a GCM acquisition of GLDX? OK, I am curious what the acquistion ratio would be. The lowball offer last time which fell through was 1/2 a share of GCM per share of GLDX if I remember correctly. As a GLDX shareholder, I would want at least 0.75 share of GCM per share of GLDX in order to vote yes on a pending deal.
Remember, the split-adjusted highs for GLDX are $75 USD a share. We are trading at only 3% of that right now. An acquisition anywhere near today's share price for GLDX is grand larceny, it makes no sense to give away the shop for next to nothing. Using a standard 50% premium, that would value GLDX's shares at about 75% of GCM's, so anything less than 0.75 share won't cut it.
With regards to the chatter about a possible Chinese acqusition, I would vote no based on principle alone, regardless of the offer amount.