Some faulty logic out there I've read on these forums regarding shareholders who own both (who are FOR the merger) who are better to sell FWR and buy NOT on the open market at the better ratio than simply tender their shares.

I did some quick math at my desk here this morning and this doesn't hold much water, at least in my case.

If I am for the merger (which I am undecided still) I am better off to tender rather than sell FWR and buy NOT.

Here is why, my average price in NOT right now is USD $3.26 (after initially buying at the highs and buying all the way down to $1.20 USD). My average price in FWR is .295 USD.

My math here says that if I were to sell all my FWR today and buy more NOT I would bring my average price down to $3.04 USD (and pay capital gains and broker fees on the buy/sell). If I tender my shares at the 1 to 4 ratio by average price comes all the way down to $2.92 USD (and I pay no capital gains or broker fees for the transaction).

Obvious to me now the reason is because by tendering my effective purchase price for NOT is $1.18 USD.

Like I said, I have not decided what I am going to do yet. Obviously if your averages on the two companies are vastly different than mine you would need to do your own calculating to see what makes sense to you, but don't just eat what's being fed on these forums that if you want to tender you are better off to just sell FWR and buy NOT, because at least in my case it's not true.

John Defur's advice is very sound though regarding having all the eggs in one basket, which is why I am probably better off selling some of both NOT and FWR and redistributing to some unhedged junior golds I have that are riding the wave.