This is starting to get really interesting. We are about to get more of a percentage in a private company with no obligation to pay us anything unless they desire. I knew we would all eventually be rewarded for being part of a WCD. And on Monday we are supposed to get even more great news.WOW
Did you know public companies have no obligation to pay shareholders dividends either?
Iâm going to make this one point for the last time and then Iâll let it go.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a public company owning shares of a private company? Hello? What do you think it means that we owns shares of NUOCO?
AMC is private and has provided more transparency about their operations than MDMN ever has. MDMN is public and none of us know WTF is going on. Nor have all of the reports, rumors, and new releases from MDMN been accurate!
I fully expect AMC to provide regular, meaningful, updates to their shareholders. I also expect theyâll be far more accountable than MDMN EVER HAS regarding their use of funds and accounting. Gee, itâs possible they even have financial reports in compliance with gaap . . . something MDMN never has come close to and never will.
Does anyone here realize what an upgrade this is or am I alone in this matter?
11 Likes
Well said Wizard. I think the main problem is that we are all sooo burnt out, and stuck like a pig, that we do not want to wait another 6 months to 2 years to be rewarded. I am jealous of the new investors that are coming in now, if there are any. They get to circumvent the past, buy a ton of stock at a ridiculous price, put their feet up, and in a couple of years will âmost likelyâ be rewarded. All of us were just way too early to the party!!!
3 Likes
not alone. the silent majority I believe concur as well.
Works for me more percentage in Auryn ride there coattails. Now say I do and letâs make some damn money!
I donât know and I see no point in speculating. Maybe itâs simply exactly what was offered in the update? Maybe MG was right? Maybe it needs to happen before Auryn moves forward? Nobody knows for sure, but that never stops peopleâs wheels from spinning. I retired from trading about a month ago. I havenât looked at the markets and have only poked my head in here a handful of times. I canât tell you how nice it has been to get away from both. Thereâs a lot more life and fun to be had. 
4 Likes
CDCH will emerge as the far better play as soon as we hear the details of the new purchase agreement. IMO. I wonât be surprised if the CDCH/MDMN ratio gets well above the old 2:1 ratio. If MDMN ends up with 25% of AMC that would/should value CDCH at 20 cents. Iâll take that all day long. 
2 Likes
Curious, but if MDMN ends up with 25% of AMC why would CDCH be the âfar better playâ?
If that is what MDMN ends up with, It all is straight math at that point.
CDCH owns 5% of AMCâŚ
MDMN owns 25% of AMC, 7.5 million shares in CDCH, 15% of NUOCO (ostensibly another 0.75% of AMC,) 20 million shares of AMP.
We donât know immediate numbers but for sake of the argument lets say CDCH has 300M issued and MDMN 1.5M issued when all the debts are paid for each company and financials cleaned up. CDCH may have slightly less there. Also letâs assume MDMNâs AMP stock is worthless.
Now we have CDCH with 300M issued and 5% of AMC. MDMN with 1.5B issued and 25.75% of AMC and 2.5% of CDCH.
Fundamentally theyâll have about equal value and should trade at roughly 1:1.
That said, CDCH is going to have far more volatility and will be a much better play for people who are flipping and trading. Only about 40% of its stock is in the public float per the latest filings.
FYI . . . the 2015 financial reports for CDCH are out on OTC.
This one note concerns me.
During February 2016 Cerro Dorado, Inc.âs ownership of Sociedad Contractual Minera
Cerro Dorado Chile increased from 50% to 99.8%. Consideration for the additional
ownership is still under negotiation. The Company also exchanged all of its mining
claims in exchange for 5,000,000 shares (approximately 5% ownership) of a Chile
based mining company.
Why are they saying itâs still under negotiation? LP told others it was done and in other places in their financials they seemed to indicate there is no outstanding obligation for this.
PS. John, youâve got to play it honestly. You and I both know you canât extrapolate and say CDCH should be trading at $0.20. There is no way MDMN option at todayâs value is worth $100M. And there is no way that today AMC is worth $1B.
Letâs let AMC do go into early production first and do the exploration on the Pegaso Nero and LDM claims before getting nuts. Then at the end of the day (maybe even this year) both companies can be TOâd for north of a dime.
1 Like
TMP never suffers a loss of opportunity for math exercises in the name of speculation on the future. I enjoy it myself.
In that spirit, I think one of the important things to watch for in any upcoming announcement is what happens to that 15% of NUOCO currently in the hands of MDMN. If we assume for the moment MDMN ends up with 25% of AMC instead of the 15% proposed in the current Option agreement and the $100M cash goes away, the question remains what did they give up in total and what did they get in total for that $100M:
- They get: +10% of AMC (15% to 25%). They give up $100M AND the 15% of NUOCO.
OR - They get: +10% of AMC (15% to 25%). They give up $100M but they retain the 15% of NUOCO
Come TO time that will be a non-trivial concern if the LDM exploration confirms the theories expressed by Auryn in their Updates.
If MDMN had to give up $100M and 15% of NUOCO in order to get an additional 10% of AMC, I would consider that negatively because no argument today about AMC cash limitations or wanting to use cash to leverage the property by putting it into exploration etc. can justify having to give up that 15% at this time. In addition it would make your â$1Bâ required valuation of AMC to justify the Option modification, even worse.
There is no doubt Auryn wants that 15% of NUOCO ultimately. Itâs important that we retain it in any new deal, IMO.
3 Likes
I understand all the above is still speculation, but it is a FAR BETTER COMMENTARY than the useless whining and crying some love to do.
Just sayingâŚ
2 Likes
Good point. My post needs adjusting. I was considering that AMC acquired all of NUOCO for 5% of AMC and not just the 85% of NUOCO for 5% of AMC. If itâs that latter then MDMN still owns 15% of AMC. Thatâs a big thing. If there is another P beneath there and also the gold and copper weâll end up with 15% of it that we own outright and an additional 21.25% through a 25% ownership in AMC (should that be the number.) The total benefit of NUOCOâs claims then would increase to 36.25%. Not bad.
2 Likes
Exactly right. Just goes to show you how badly weâre being railroaded on the option agreement. I understand your point of view and donât necessarily agree or disagree with it but saying âitâs s good dealâ because we are financially insolvent or outmanoeuvred or were never going to get $100M or the market has changed for the sector, etc, etcâŚis not about a âgood deal.â You are suggesting itâs the only deal and I have no doubt our new âpartnersâ convinced you of the same. I guess weâll never know but, for the long-term holders here itâs a dagger in the heart. At six years I almost feel like a newbie and will happily take the 10-20cent exit (later in the year) but it will still be chalked up as a losing investment for me based on opportunity cost alone.
There hasnât been a deal struck on this mountain that hasnât changed from its original form/structure (LDM, Nuoco, ADL, CDCH). The market is waiting for s specific, static, contract to work from. No bid until then.
2 Likes
Now we get to the point where we can discuss something. 
No, Iâm not suggesting that. And no, AMC has not convinced me of it. Why I am insistent on MDMN closing this now with a real (and in my opinion fair) deal that is on the table has nothing to do with those things. It has to do with I donât want to suffer any more opportunity cost (as you described.) I am fully convinced that the home team has no capacity to get any better deal than is being offered today and if given the opportunity will only make things worse for shareholders. MDMN has proven again and again their skill at destroying equity! I want that to end as quickly as possible. The end of that is on the immediate horizon!
You may be comfortable with MDMN waiting it out, suffering dilution because they donât have any money, risk losing claims because they donât know have any property managers and have always paid twice the taxes in arrears, then eventually renegotiating with AMC, getting the 100M as is, or worse renegotiating with some other party. (Frankly, Iâm shocked that you would be comfortable with that.) I AM NOT AT ALL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. AS IN NO SLEEP UNCOMFORTABLE. Yes itâs because Iâm over-invested. Nevertheless, I know what 17 years of MMC running things equals.
IâM DONE WITH THAT!
13 Likes
Letts resigning from the board of Medinah is simply because all the business for the Fortuna, Caren, LDM/Nuoco and ADL has all but been concluded and announced. AURYN now has 100% of the mountain, which is everything they set out to do from the beginning. Letts sat out of any negotiations between AURYN and MDMN. There is nothing left for him to accomplish for MDMN. He likely advised the MDMN BOD to hurry up and wrap the option up, and get JJ out of the picture. As many have said here, earlier is better than later. I wouldnât be surprised to see some sort of NSR for early gold production directly to shareholders (paid to MDMN and distributed in some fashion), at least until a good mapping of resources results in a TO offer for remaining percentages in AURYN to move the âbig boysâ in on the project.
1 Like
CHG, youâre killing me. I think I just ruined a perfectly good keyboard by snorting coffee.
Midwestern ironic humor at its best, thanks!
Quote from Wizard:
âDuring February 2016 Cerro Dorado, Inc.âs ownership of Sociedad Contractual Minera
Cerro Dorado Chile increased from 50% to 99.8%. Consideration for the additional
ownership is still under negotiation. The Company also exchanged all of its mining
claims in exchange for 5,000,000 shares (approximately 5% ownership) of a Chile
based mining company.â
This statement was as of 12/31/15. The March 7th update states that the negotiations were completed with no additional cost to CDCH.
The 2015 Annual Report Disclosure dated 4/1/16 confirms this.
3 Likes
Not disagreeing that itâs done Z, but how can they make a statement as of 12/31/15 that begins, âDuring February 2016 . . . ?â
I believe its called âSignificant subsequent eventsâ. The financial statements are not completed until some time after 12/31/15 and i believe they have to include significant events that have taken place between the acutal date of the financials and the actual publication of same. Apparently at the date of publication, they had not wrapped up the negotiations⌠JMO
2 Likes
I did notice that the subsequent event cutoff date was 4/1/16 so not sure why they did not include the resolution of the negotiations. Probably an oversight and why it is included in the Disclosure filing.