history --or dummy spit!, page-3

"Bigger is better doesn't always work."

Whilst that certainly applies to combining/merging companies ,the same can be said for doubling or trebling the shares on issue , which has happened over time .
The latest 87 mill takes IGR to nearly 950 million shares on issue , so with nearly 1 billion shares on issue , a 10c price movement capitalizes the company by a further $100 mill dollars .
To get back to 50c ,$200 mill has to be added to the market cap , and the "trading pressure " with that amount of shares on issue will make any continuous upward movement really hard to sustain .
The suggestion of "merger" doesn't guarantee a better price ( as exampled by Alacer) , but it might mean the best "skill sets" from Directorship down through Mine Management and Exploration are combined in on entity .Operationally , there is no reliance on one successful mine , and non encumbered cash flow allows for a dedicated and continuious exploration budget.
I very much doubt that the likes of NCM would be interested , and I likewise am not interested in NCM paper .
I was hoping that IGR may be able to follow the Regis (RRL ) template , and that good Directorship , mine management and great discovery would see the share price rise ..and even in these markets , be sustainable .
It is not to say that THE big NEW second discovery to take IGR to a 10 year mine life isn't close ( in addition to that 10 year mine life being achieved with the Underground operations ).
My point remains that this added dilution, and the competition between these multiple small to middle teir miners in the area , it is so much more difficult to create sustainable shareholder value .
JMHO