JT, I agree. Patient investors should be rewarded so it's a case...

JT, I agree. Patient investors should be rewarded so it's a case of riding out the next 2 months.

Here's my personal take on what we've seen:

* The massive turn-over in shares has been in AAG, NOT WGR. There has been very little turn-over of WGR.

* Who's selling? Probably some of the sophisticates who either picked up shares at 24 cents at the last raising, or more likely at 13 cents over a year ago to fund the Fulcrim sale. Cashing out a 100% return in 12 months - over the minimum capital gains tax period - hardly equates to leaving a sinking ship.

* Who's buying into AAG and at such large volumes? As someone pointed out, unlikely to be hedge funds wanting to arbitrage on the price differential.

So it's probably savvy investors who see long-term value in the tie-up, and entry level into WGR's assets at 28 cents per share. These investors would be supportive of the merger.

All this would support WGR's contention that there should be a market re-valuation of WGR/AAG post-merger.

I agree RUM is an interesting wildcard. But I believe the market has seriously undervalued WGR's assets.

Yes, AAG has more ounces in the ground and liquid assets. But Rover 1 = greenfield, copper credits, lower cash costs, higher chance of a discovery. The landholding alone is 14,000 km2 compared to the CMGP's 300 km2.

April is only a few weeks away.