Member Info for addicknt

Fort, I agree with much of what you say, however, as we approach 2025 the element of political risk ,which, as we know, has been significantly mitigated by Lasso, will return.
We were hugely held back by the previous uncertainty and it could easily repeat itself. For me, this suggests we are currently in a sweet spot and our board should maximise the opportunity by selling Alpala asap.
All of us breathed a sigh of relief when Lasso was elected and I have no wish to run the risk of a far left candidate winning the next election, which seems to me quite likely. Why do I say this? Because Ecuador will be subject to the same economic woes as the rest of us times 10, and in these circumstances the electorate could easily be swayed by the usual left wing rhetoric.
I am certain none of this has escaped our board.

Eish, the agenda can be found on the company's web site. You should contact HL again and tell them to record your vote - ask for email confirmation.

Pbow, I'm sure you've worked out that happyharry and buddy are the same person. You can tell by the illiterate nature of his posts. Best to ignore the poltroon.

RK, how would a shorter be able to close a position at such a premium to the prevailing price?

Do people actually know it was GDXJ, or is it merely a guess?

DBW, not a clue. Very interesting.

According to the Stock Exchange web site there were also nearly 500k shares bought at 35.58.
What a very strange end to an otherwise disappointing day.

Jerry, are you still long on GGP? And I agree, I sold all of my "sensible" stocks a while back.

Fortissimo, I hope you're right, but fear you are not. That awful plutocrat Jamie Dimon seems to have a pretty good take on things.
Btw, the response to covid was simply yet more printing of money - more petrol on the flames.

Fortissimo, yes, over-margined traders do have an impact, but my observation is referring to the macro global economy and geo-political situation, neither of which are anything other than calamitous. I struggle to see anything positive about the current environment and believe we are in for a very rough ride.
You correctly refer to the dollar as being over-valued; the fact is we are about to reap the whirlwind caused by the issuing of vast quantities of money over the past decade. It's as if our 'leaders', I use the word advisedly, have no idea of the long term consequences of their actions. A very basic understanding of economics would have helped them. The fact is they thought they'd got away with it. It was an experiment which up until now had just about worked, but reality is now biting them, and the rest of us, in the arse.
Inflation has only one cure - a recession, and that's exactly what we're facing. I pray that we can somehow avoid this, but I'm struggling to see how.

a safe haven stock?
In my opinion we are staring at the prospect of a FTSE which could easily collapse to 5000, or perhaps even less. Not only are the global markets in turmoil, here in the UK we have one of the most economically illiterate governments I can ever recall. They really are startled rabbits in the headlights and are lurching all over the place as they struggle to come up with a coherent strategy. This bodes ill for our near and medium term future. I should add that I don't see any other government who knows what to do, so global markets don't offer that much comfort.
How will our business react?
I don't for one moment believe we are immune, but the fact is in a sense we are fortunate not to be in production already. As we know, our value is wholly predicated on the long term value of copper (the gold is a huge bonus, for which we are accorded little value) and that isn't going away.
Many of us will currently be sitting on a significant profit and the temptation to sell must be great. The problem is, where would you put your money? Everything will get hammered and your profits could evaporate in a trice. Companies which are considered "safe" will also suffer - no one will escape the potential disaster.
Many of us on here are old enough to recall the '70s and '80s and understand what could happen: sadly, our policy makers are not and appear to be utterly clueless.
As I said, we will not be immune - far from it, but with the prospect of a bid lurking, perhaps this is as good a stock to hold as any?

DBW, thanks.

rcgl, I understand your logic, it's just that I have an old-fashioned view of executive remuneration, which is primarily related to risk taking. I have no problem rewarding staff with a decent salary and bonus package, but I do baulk at shareholders being forced to dilute when those same executives take no risk with their own money. In my mind, the line between remuneration and risk has become too blurred. Nowadays boards seem to think just having a job is sufficient risk to justify share-based incentives. If staff want equity-type returns, then stump-up some cash.
I know I'm completely out of kilter with the modern world, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
By the way, I understand who will benefit from these arrangements and I'd be screaming from the rooftops if the non-execs were beneficiaries.

Q, shareholder approval is required for this type of thing, but you do have to wonder about the timing - why couldn't it have waited until the agm?
I have voted against Resolutions 1-3 and for Resolution 4.

which way our major shareholders will vote at the EGM?
My guess is that they will have been extensively consulted beforehand and have signalled their consent. The Board cannot afford another significant vote against their proposals and we must bear in mind a commitment was made to consult more widely with them. In other words, the motions will pass comfortably.
Does anyone have any other thoughts?

BBG, I think he'll probably be passed out on the floor of his corrugated iron shack in Boogaloogabunga, surrounded by last evenings empty tinnies.

Tell you what, Buddy, why don't you continue howling at the moon and being rude to people whilst we discuss what we choose to discuss? If you don't like it I suggest you disappear - you will not be missed.

Bozi, if you look at any of their presentations for at least the last 18 months you'll see they specifically refer to the money they are spending on exploration in Ecuador. And as the political landscape has become more miner friendly we can anticipate their interest will only increase...particularly given the potential problems in Chile and Peru.

Bozi.
1. That is a possibility.
2. This doesn't sit with their stated strategy and current investments. They've openly stated their intentions in Ecuador.
3. Then why have they invested? (see point 2)
4. Again, this is a possibility but comes with significant risk i.e the assets never become distressed and more value is created along the way. This has been the strategy we've been pursuing and it makes good sense.
I'm afraid the balance of your arguments doesn't lead to the conclusion the production case has any real strength.

Bozi, the fault with the production argument is that it ignores the outside forces, which exist in the form of BHP, its intentions and corporate strategy. We can wish as much as we like, but until someone provides a real reason why BHP would allow a competitor to emerge and would be content to sit with a minority shareholding for the next x number of years, the production argument looks very frail indeed.