RE:RE:RE:RE:realityThanks Suregold,
Is one's glass half empty - or half full?
Management don't actually "control" 2/3rds of the shares of NFG. They have significant skin in the game, yes - but the true anchor has been the holdings of investors Palisades and Sprott - and Novo to a lesser degree - none of whom I would classify as Management. Yes, it has limited the float, but it has also kept the tire-kickers from.coming in, in these early stages, with spurious offers.
So, one might take solace in knowing: "Sprott and Palisades have both made no secret of their intention here, which is to get this to a point at which a buyout will occur at a price acceptable to them". I still see that as a good thing. (And Walter Coles at Skeena has said essentially the same thing from the start...i.e. You can look...but don't waste our time!). I don't think many would want to endure the thousand-yard stare from these guys at a low-ball offer!
Happy to read your thoughts...we all think them - but the game is the game...and these guys are pros.
On another note - while I would never pretend to have thicker skin than you, I think that you should be aware that some others will always have as much or more invested in a particular stock as you do. It is not a race! The beauty of the system is that folks can put into a stock what they can afford - and still be entitled to a voice...and this keeps us all humble.
Best wishes,
El d
suregold1 wrote:
Unfortunately, management comtrol over 2/3 of the outstanding shares here and while this has been an advantage in early stages by limiting the float available for free trading and thus drivining share price dramatically, it is now a liability as far as we are concerned "in the short term". Many of you keep harping about mining this ourselves. Well, I urge you to look to history for your guide. Sprott and Palisades have both made no secret of their intention here, which is to get this to a point at which a buyout will occur at a price acceptable to them. They have no way to monetize their investment gains here other than to sell the company; as there is little to no liquidity for any one to move a large block of stock. As a matter of fact, it is even difficult to move small lots at times due to the illiquidity. Sprott especially has been down this road before and he sold off his huge position in Fosterville to a major (at a price which probably disappointed minority shareholders at the time) thus deferring tax in an all share deal, and he made the majority of his gains in the Kirkland subsequent share price appreciation as they mined the deposit. Most likely that will also be the route they take here. For example, newmont trades over 8 million shares a day and pays a dividend linked to the price of gold. We can speculate and moan and groan all we like. reality is that Sprott and Palisades will do what they need to do to maximize their long term gains and liquidity. Plus, Sprott is 75 years old. Time is running out for him. Most likely we will see a buyout before the end of this year. GBR is gone and we are probably next in line. Now I will be crapped upon here for speaking out! Oh well, I have a tough skin. And before you critize, I have a very significant 6 figure investment here. I still think this will be a great investment, but I think most of you will be severly disappointed. We have suffered a lot of dilution and with almost three times the shares as GBR, a $30 buyout like they had will cost $5.4 billion CDN. Majors learned their lesson 20 years ago and those kinds of deals are very unlikely to occur in future.