Member Info for bluetigeruk

WABU - so do they have to purchase CO2 contracts to release the CO2 created during processing / cracking? Thats a very interesting point you make - thanks Blue

ExtractAuDust.

Movement of ja people.

Thanks Blue

JET47

Years ago I worked for an Aussie broking team in London flogging small miners, late 80s early 90s. One of our teams Dad was running Fosters in the UK. They were new Perth money. They rented a big house near Chalfont. They had an old dairy in the garden and it was lined with original Delft tiles. The sons ordered a beer fridge, pool table, big stereo and turned it into the bar/den. One afternoon they took a sledge hammer to the tiles to modernise it a bit and make it look more modern. They smashed around 400 tiles off one wall. I told them they were rare but they didn't get it. Their old man had to pay a huge compensation fee to the owners of the house. I always wondered what a Delft dairy was valued at, any ideas??

I think that now the MRE is out there then some new investors who cant invest due to fund rules pre MRE should become involved on the share register now. Same later with the mining commencement - then GGP is in production not just exploration so its a different investment grade and can be bought more widely.

Thanks Blue

Not sure this is an issue - waiting for the production cash flow - any bank will issue a bond against future cash flows - don't even need to issue equity - just get some debt in place and issue some HY debt. Once MRE is in place then its a formality i would think. Could probably do it now but its better to have an asset estimate to lien against. I would guess - and i mean guess - that by March 2021 we may see some debt in place as a mining operations fund. Debt is simply future cash flows pulled forward.

Thanks Blue

I also agree - why not go to the market and say - look at our track record and asset base - we want to raise $30m to explore the final targets and then use the data as a position of strength to negotiate a true JV with a miner / Newcrest. To be honest with the future cash flow predicted from HAV and the cost of money so cheap it would also have been easy to create a debt issue and do it that way. With all the funds currently buying in top GGP placing new capital wouldn't be hard to the tune of £30m or so. Its what their brokers are for - selling shares to investment funds.

I dont know it just seems a weak strategy to me - and yes Redirons i agree its been great so far but i think could have been better. By the way for reference many years ago i was a junior on a broking trading desk with Tony Mahalski etc - look him up.

I agree - its not a great deal for GGP and possibly too early to make a deal too.

Does this maybe mean that Scally is a duster?? because if its not then why the pressure on farm in agreements right now.

Also the value of the farm in is quite low - and it should have some steps in it - use $25m and find 1m oz get 80% - find 2m oz get 75% etc ... say down to a 50/50 at 10m or whatever.

It suggests to me that GGP will be sold after the next 12-18 months of exploration.

Not a bad thing of course but could have been much better I think.

Thanks Blue

What time Thursday, because I have to go out between 10am and 11.30 to Tesco.

Thanks Blue

The chances of a takeover are Minimal. The board have already agreed to a reverse takeover (ahem 'merger') with a US listed company and the plans are to get this done around Q1 next year - so just for accuracy there is the lowest probability of a takeover.

Thanks Blue.

Broker Note

Yes i agree Dillon - in my experience you dont really want a broker note in an AIM stock as it usually means they are revving up for some corporate action - normally a capital raise of some sort - the brokers write the note to support the raise - its part of the corporate finance commission deal.

Brokers dont write notes for free!

The house broker will certainly write an update twice a year and i guess when MRE is out there - but they get paid for this in their annual broker charges - plus they get to inform the institutional buyers first ring about anything that needs buying / or selling of course.

A Natural Resources / Mining Specialist Team may write a note on GGP - but thats - you guessed it - because they are paid to do it - probably by funds who like the research team and pay them a fee each year for their wisdom - and / or via some trading commissions.

Thanks Blue

The AIM market has very poor liquidity - even in the favourite stocks NOVA, GGP etc ... there is very little. Its all OK if the market is more or less 'matched' so a few sells go to a few buys - the MM are happy because the take their spread and PIs are happy because they can buy and sell. But once the market gets 'FAST' yes thats a term and when it gets our of equilibrium and into Auction - then there more or less is zero liquidity.
MM dont have a huge risk allowance in individual AIM stocks and there is no derivative market to offset risk - i mean Options here - so if lots of Sell or Buy trades hit the market then the MM get long / short very quickly - this is why you get those great days when the share jumps 15% in a session and terrible days where it falls down the lift shaft for a few sessions.

The market is currently long of stock, too many sellers, but this overhang will go as buyers arrive at lower prices and as any investment funds that can buy AIM shares - and there are not many especially after Neil Woodford basically ended his career trading in AIM -via his Fund - start to review their price targets given the 40% haircut we just had.

That said - i still think that NOVA is a very strong investment case, is debt free, has hockey stick growth, huge international distribution channels, has a diversification plan, and is probably trading at 2x cash / NAV which makes it a target for a takeover and also makes it a candidate for a serious rerating.

The big Gorrilla is - does the current Covid testing revenue disappear - and if something remains what is the low tide mark and how do the sales/revenues curve down to meet the demand change - given the business runs at around 50% Net Margins - then each £100 that disappears from the revenues also £50 disappears from the profit before tax.

My opinion is that international travel, corporate events, 'rona cluster breakouts all will continue to require testing, as will populations post vaccine - unless its 100% effective and the virus does not mutate too much - and then what is flu and what is rona? Winterplex is a great product too.

Anyway - thats my view i am holding - Blue

Its based on Future Assumptions, given that a share valuation is the predicted and discounted total sum of future cash flows.

Thanks Blue

Yes Spud i agree with you - and as you know i have been in here since it was 3p - just keeping it honest for new arrivals.

Its not a miner - its an exploration company and they have not drilled anything yet - so in fact its only just an exploration company - its in fact an exploration licence holder with some remote sensing data.

Panther could have some decent potential but needs £££ to drill and to estimate resources from the geology sampling.

But its at least 5 years away from being a miner, and probably never will be.

Its a cash raise and NASDAQ listing for UK 4D to become US 4D (newco). The ratio of the reverse in is 8:7.5 so 4D US gets a 7% discount - probably to reflect costs to the US side. There is no premium being paid to 4D - well hardly anything - but it gets 4D off AIM and onto NASDAQ where money vs results vs valuation is currently better for shareholders. Obviously results etc are needed to drive the valuation, but I definitely think its +ve. Also if one of the big US pharmas do a deal then the US investors will be all over 4D US - and I guess thats what they are taking the US listing for - emphasise guess.

Blue.

Bit rampy - what event will make it move from 12p to 50p by Christmas - except for Twitter predictions. Thats about 9 weeks away. Thanks - BLue

Better get on with it then - the licence expires in September 2041!

If you want to get an idea of how detailed a mining asset report is and also learn a bit about how value is calculated have a look at the report here for Newcrest's Cadia operation.

https://www.newcrest.com/sites/default/files/2020-10/Technical%20Report%20on%20Cadia%20Operations%20as%20of%2030%20June%202020_0.pdf

Thanks for the feedback Noix.

I am not commenting on the investment potential of 4D simply the discussion on interpretation of the meaning of statistically insignificant.

To be clear you are correct in assuming that more numbers / participants in the study will create clearer results - imaging looking through a telescope and slowly turning the focus to sharpen the image, thats what the numbers do they reduce the standard error which means reduce the randomness in the findings or statistical white noise. Or if you like the more people that say YES the more certain you can be that YES is the true result.

But the other side of this is that the randomness is less as the findings stack up away from the null hypotheses. So 20 people in the study, if 16 say yes and 4 say no you would think - well thats a clear win for yes. But what if the placebo was 15 said yes and 5 said no - the difference is muddy, could be due to randomness.

So expand the study - lets go for 200 patients in the treatment and 200 in the placebo - now 160 say yes vs 150 in placebo - a 10 difference - maybe that has enough numbers in the study to counter the null hypothesis.

In all of these studies the Research designer - will have to predict BEFORE the study the results that will counter the null hypothesis - you cant just get the data and say look its a win - you have to be clear before the experiment starts what a win looks like.

Finally if you take my above example 15 YES vs 150 YES the proportions (%) are the same - which was the analysis in the email you posted up which i challenged - now you can see why that is a nonsense - because the numbers in the study make it more powerful (Read The Power of Survey Design if this is interesting at all to you because I expect the 'results' were simply interview based questions rather than biochemistry) - although the proportions have not changed.
So there are 2 main factors at play here - Yes the numbers in the study (better focus) but also the actual results differential you are looking at - a bigger object in the first place in the telescope viewfinder - a big object and a focussed telescope give the strong results you need - statistical significance. Lets call the object a horse.

A big object with a slightly fuzzy telescope - OK its still a fairly certain results. My feeling is its currently a fuzzy telescope and an object more or less the same size as the placebo object - which is which, the brown horse on the right or the brown horse on the left? Can you tell which horse is named placebo?

I suspect the email you posted was written by someone in Financial PR.

Noix your maths is wrong. Differences between 2 groups - say A and B are measured against the null hypothesis - and are based on the standard deviation and variance around the mean of the two groups, not the differece between the % efficacy as youhave done - in fact youcant compare differences in percentages in that way, itsnonsense.

This is because group A could have 100 trial participants and group B 10 and so your % vs % difference method would not work as the population difference hides the results - you need to include the population in the study and then lay the two standard deviations over one another - if there is not clear separation between the null hypothesis (this means nothing changed) and the study group - then the differences between the two groups are statistically insignificant in this case at P>0.05.

This is the maths of probability distribution and is the method used in these medical trials and actually almost all scientific study because studies always start with the null hypothesis and its the job of the experimenter to disprove it.

So clearly the response C and response D were NOT 46% and 31% better than placebo - in fact they could not be separated from placebo, hence they were reported in a RNS as not statistically significant - or if you like in layman's terms - not distinguishable from placebo.

Finally the combination of C&D studies did give a statistically significant reading due to something called standard error SE - but only just - so by combining both study populations the results were just indistinguishable from the placebo / null hypothesis.

I am not writing this to have a go at you - but i want readers of the board to be clear in their understanding of the results - and yes i also lost some ££ on this trade.

Thanks Blue