Alpha Minerals Inc ESOFD

AMW and FIS are totally different animals

[Tinmann]

FIS has assets that AMW does not and vice-versa, so direct comparisons are almost useless aside from using AMW to peg the PLS value in FIS, which lets you see how the market is valuing FIS' other assets.

 

Here's what's happening: People want exposure to Patterson Lake, so they look at FIS vs AMW. FIS has multiples of AMW's share count, so AMW provides the most direct leverage to Patterson Lake. If you want exposure to PLS AMW is what you want to own, simple as that. It's a question of leverage, period. Initially, the market was pricing AMW off of FIS... that's backwards. AMW should (and now is) pegging the value of PLS for FIS. I have no problem with FIS, but for me, I like Patterson Lake, which is why I'm in AMW.

[bridgetonowhere]

@Tinmann - Wondering if you held HAT when Rio bought it out and how it's joint venture partnership issue was handled.  AMW and FIS potentially could be in a similair situation.  It's possible that a take-out offer, could simultaneous be made to both companies or be made to one company exclusively.   And - however remote the possibility - could an acquirer pit AMW and FIS

[Tinmann]

Good question. Short answer, yes, I did hold HAT when it was bought out. I held it when it had a $35mm market cap before the assays and rode it to $3.50-$4 as the early drilling progressed. I sold out about half a year later and started buying back before the Rio Tinto bid. I'd have been better off just holding it in retrospect. We're way too early to think about selling AMW given how

[Tinmann]

To follow on, what we may see FIS develop is a frustating, but persistent "market discount" in the implied/perceived value of FIS' other assets as the market continues to focus on Patterson Lake. Since AMW unquestionably still represents the best leverage through it's capital structure and assets to Patterson Lake (the "pure play"), AMW has started (and will likely

[bridgetonowhere]

It's also possible that the articles of the joint venture contain a shotgun clause or an umbrella agreement that kicks-in if a take-over offer is made.  For an acquirer, it would seem unwieldy to be dealing with two different groups of shareholders at the same time.  JV's are rather common-place in mining though so the situation isn't unique.  Hopefully we find out