Member Info for asclypius

Not sure about this "level of return" argument. Company earns outrageous ROCE and is getting turbo-charged by 100% profit margin royalty income. In what sense is "level of return" inadequate given extremely high ROCE, ROE, ROA etc., strong cash generation and dividends?

An article for today:

https://monopolyinvestor.substack.com/p/games-workshop-a-modern-day-tom-sawyer

On the day it is ex-dividend, you cannot buy it and get the dividend.

https://cube.investments/rockrose-energy-rre-happy-new-year/

Is discussed here (subscription service)

https://cube.investments/gocompare-com-goco-some-fascinating-share-price-comparisons/

GumT, you have failed to bring anything to this message board except unbacked assertions, slurs and outright falsehoods. You said they didn't hedge, I informed you of the document showing that they are 99% hedged, and you had nothing in response except more assertions and denials. You are in a world of your own thinking that they are not a financial stock. See how they are categorised by the stock exchange and the indexes. It's frankly worrying that someone like you could have influence on financial regulations, when you don't understand how financial businesses work or the nature of the service they provide. Insurance premiums, overdraft charges and interest payments could all be attacked in the same way you attack IG's business model, and such attacks would be equally frivolous. You have some kind of chip on your shoulder, that much is clear. Talking to you is the same as talking to a brick wall, so I don't expect you to take any of this on board. I will continue holding my IG shares profitably. Enjoy your retirement. Goodbye.

If you don't understand what is the nature of the service that is provided by financial firms, then you don't seem to be in a good position to bring fairness for consumers. For shame.

You, sir, do not understand the financial industry. Good luck.

"I disagree that all companies profit from making customers poorer. Customers pay for a service or product. If those are shyte then, yes, the business gains by providing substandard service/product and the customer is bearing a loss. That's why there are laws to protect consumers from such practices. Spreadbetters whole business model is based on gaining from clients losses. This is quite different from the above scenarios. " IG is a financial stock. Look at banks and insurance companies and lending businesses, all of them financial stocks. You might notice that nearly all of their customers end up transferring more money to these businesses, than these businesses ever hand back to their customers. It's not a scam. It's risk transfer and interest rate arbitrage. This is the financial industry.

Hi matt, yes I'm sitting on a fat return too, having bought a good chunk of IG in the low 500s. It's just frustrating to see unfounded allegations and poor analysis being thrown around again and again. It's a bulletin board, so I suppose it's my own fault for caring! GL.

"IG are not intermediaries making money from each transaction as a real broker does." The most basic understanding of the company would lead you to understand that they make money from the spread and from financing charges to their clients, and from the commission for those trades where commission is charged (share dealing). They make money from each transaction, not in the same way as a "real broker" does, but in the way that a spread betting or CFD company does. And they are 99% hedged, so they don't directly profit from clients trading badly. The truth is that they want their clients to trade well, as clients who trade well are more likely to keep trading.

How slippery.... you went from saying they weren't hedged, to admitting that they might be 1% hedged or 100% hedged. Why not just admit you were wrong? You've now retreated to the vague allegation that they make money from client losses. Newsflash: all companies make money off their clients. All companies get richer from their clients being made poorer in some ways, and richer in others.

Tell us exactly which documents support your position or else admit that you have no supporting evidence. Don't evade by saying "even if they were 100% hedged.....". Tell us why we should believe they aren't hedged.

I corrected GumT several months ago and yet here is, still spreading the same wrong information. Go to page 16 of the H1 Presentation, left-hand side "Notional Positions (�m)". It says: "IG remains 99% hedged - internalisation plus external hedge". Look at the relevant charts in this presentation. If they are lying, then sue them.

IG hedge client positions in the underlying markets, there is very little betting against the customer going on. If you want to see a company which profits from client trading losses, see Plus500.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/business/Companies/article1641429.ece

I had a lovely little short in QPP running, and was cheated out of my profits by S&G's need to commit suicide. Made a little bit of money from shorting S&G but natural justice dictates that QPP should have been the one to go to the wall.

Looks like someone didn't notice they had to write off some of reserves due to low POG! Yes they might convert more resources into reserves, it's possible, but at what price? Is it even possible to tell? By the way, for what it's worth, I'm not actually English/British. Your rant is barely worth responding to. There's no need to be upset, focus on the issues. Salazar's original stated business plan was to pay a dividend in June 2013, which was then delayed to January 2014 but then that didn't happen either. Their cash position is not bad but there is reasonable cause for scepticism that they will ever get around to paying anything to shareholders in the absence of much higher gold prices. If a business never pays a dividend or is in a position to return surplus capital to investors, it is a fact that it is a worthless asset, just a trading counter for mug punters to buy and sell from other mug punters until the curtain falls. I would consider buying some Omi here since it is indeed very cheap compared to the free cash flow which they *might* generate if POG was a lot higher, and the management team have earned our respect. But I also recognise that they might not generate FCF without a much higher POG, their AISC might increase each year as they incrementally use up their best reserves, their resources might be expensive to convert to 2P reserves, and even if everything goes right, we can't be sure that they will pay out to shareholders instead of spending any surplus cash on fruitless exploration or acquisitions (which makes this just a trading counter - see above). There are two sides to the argument.

I do acknowledge they are guiding for 30-35,000 oz for FY 2016, this means a very low rate of production for the rest of the year compared to Q1 2016 but if they do that, it would allow them more time to hope that POG improves. Remaining life at this rate would be 4.5 - 5.3 years. It does look like they are doing a great job from an operational point of view but essentially this is an out-of-the-money call option on the price of gold for fundamental investors.

I accept your apology but you have made additional errors. May 2015 reserves were in fact 159,000 according to the FY15 results. FY 2015 production was 53,485 oz. Q1 2016 production was 12,471 oz, annualising to 49,884. Subtract 12,471 from the May figure and you have 146,500 as at the end of Q1. Divide 146,500 by the current annualised rate of c. 50,000 and indeed you have less than three years left. Despite your numerical errors, you are right that they are following a prudent course of action by trimming production and it is indeed fair to say that they know what they are doing. It is a high-quality management team at OMI. As for your investment philosophy, it's fine to take the view that dividends don't matter relative to share price appreciation, but there is no fundamental attraction to an asset which never generates cash for shareholders and so you are left playing pass the parcel, AKA seeking a greater fool to sell the asset to. Such a fool may appear but that does indeed seem far more likely than OMI paying out £5m of dividends.

Hi bunkermad They had 159,000 2P oz in May and so if you annualise the Q1 production of 12,500 oz which was extracted then they currently have less than three years to go. As you say, POG is critical. I own call options on gold so we are probably on the same page on that front but without a huge gold price rally, how many £millions of dividends will Orosur pay out in the end, versus market cap £6m?