Re: Does Baosteel need to wait 2 years to make a hostile takeover?

HIGH-GRADE NI-CU-PT-PD-ZN-CR-AU-V-TI DISCOVERIES IN THE "RING OF FIRE"

NI 43-101 Update (September 2012): 11.1 Mt @ 1.68% Ni, 0.87% Cu, 0.89 gpt Pt and 3.09 gpt Pd and 0.18 gpt Au (Proven & Probable Reserves) / 8.9 Mt @ 1.10% Ni, 1.14% Cu, 1.16 gpt Pt and 3.49 gpt Pd and 0.30 gpt Au (Inferred Resource)

Reply New Message

Prev Message Back To Forum Threaded View Next Message

stock greed

Rank: Vice President [?]

Points: 7947 [?]

Votes: 218 Score: 3.1 [?]

Your Vote:

Please Log In to Vote

Did you know? You can earn activity points by filling your profile with information about yourself (what city you live in, your favorite team, blogs etc.)

Re: Does Baosteel need to wait 2 years to make a hostile takeover?

in response to

Does Baosteel need to wait 2 years to make a hostile takeover?

stock greed

posted on May 04, 2011 05:59PM

Thanks Hoov. Sorry, I pressed submit before completing, then you responded while I was typing.

"Does Baosteel need to wait 2 years to offer a hostile takeover to shareholders?

'scuse if you've already covered this."

But Baosteel needn't operate through a direct ownership to overcome the 2 year limitation. Mineralfields is an alternative. Cliffs could have a long-term agreement with Baosteel. A Baosteel friendly could operate under "Anonymous" to buy percentage.

Certainly, Baosteel could go for other territories with chromite during the 2 years. FNC, PRB. If they wanted land mass, then second to Noront is UC. If Cliffs is competing with Baosteel as we all hope, then Cliffs needn't wait 2 years to consolidate the area they've committed 1.8 billion to. Does anyone think they will be happily content with the ex-FWR and SPQ territories for the next 50 to 100 years while Baosteel takes possession of the majority of land surrounding them, blocking off expansion, access points, and mostly transport and power competition?