RE:RE:CHOICE : MAXIMUM RISK OR HOPEDoumDiDoum wrote: andre171 wrote: I admire DoumDiDoum’s tenacity, but I agree with others that the Nexgold takeover is probably the only lifeline for Signal shareholders. It is more than likely that no better offer has or will be on the table, which reflects concerns about the company’s sustainability.
Also look at the positive aspects of the takeover. According to Morgan Lekstrom, both of the projects (Goldboro and Goliath CGC) are expected to obtain final permits by 2025, which could command a multiple of 0.3 to 0.35 times the net asset value as considered by analysts for projects authorized at the FS stage. The NPV@5% of each of the two projects is +- 800M CAD for gold at $2300. This would give hope for a capitalization of more than 500M CAD for +- 135M shares after merger, or 3.7 per share of the new entity. With the exchange ratio of 0.1244, this gives 0.46 per SGNL share or more than 6 times the current price. You have the choice, take the risk of losing everything in the face of the potential to multiply your current assets by 6! Since the market does not give you more than 0.075 for the share price and the "mining environment" does not value Goldboro better, at least keep the hope of a short-term recovery by the valuation of the new entity. I have known promising mining companies which, in the same financial situation as SGNL, ultimately went bankrupt and for which I would have liked to benefit from an exit door as honorable as the one offered by Nexgold to Signal shareholders.
Andre, you are a NEXG shareholder so for sure you want us cheap!
Yes, I am a shareholder of Nexg but I try to be realistic, especially regarding unfortunate experiences similar to the one Signal could experience if the merger does not take place. I assure you that I have experienced so many disappointments with TML (at the origin of Nexg) that a more favorable report for SGNL shareholders would not affect me much! You will also note that I have never tried to present Goliath as being a better project than Gogboro and that I wrote that the latter was less well valued based on mining fundamentals.