Member Info for dictumdedicto

EL, true, but it really grates when it looks like 'one rule for us' type situations. I'm not a fan of Farage, Raynor, Polanski, or Davies. I think Badenoch is the least worst although I don't rate the Tories chances given the legacy of recent years. I'll likely vote next time on who will do the least damage, albeit it's not an easy criteria to work with. I had better drop the subject for now and let people get on with MTL talk. It just got my blood boiling earlier today.

Fortunately, Gill is paying the price for his crimes when he was a UKIP member. I'm not a great fan of Farage and think he may well have questions to answer on the £5m donation. It will be another case of who you believe, although putting Raynor and Farage in the same camp may well be not too far of the mark. We'll have to rely on the probity of Parliamentary Standards investigation. The case against the Raynor outcome has some clear basis in law, albeit I'm unclear on whether the £5m has actually fallen foul of any legal boundary just yet. I'm reluctant to be too supportive of Farage, and yet I really do think the case against Polanski with his council tax issue, and Raynor and her CGT challenges are far clearer. It will all come out in the wash as they say.

A few arguments made in her defence.

It's bad tax law.

Yes, but so is IR35 and yet it's still in place and has to be complied with.

HMRC are independent

They are supposed to be. In this case the acknowledged subjectivity associated with the 'not careless' decision looks like a balanced judgement between what would the consequences of a 'reasonable care' decision one way vs. the other. In law HMRC have the power to make a tax determination clear of any connected ministerial involvement, and yet it's hard to see how the political outcome of the situation could have been put to one side. A definitive 'careless' decision would have clearly put a bid for PM beyond reach, and provoked a massive political backlash from supporters right to the very top. I can't believe that senior people within HMRC would not have had this on their radar somewhere in the decision process. We'll never know the answer to this.

The full facts are not known.

Agreed. But what unknown facts would have been consequential enough to change a view based on publicly available facts. It's hard to see what these might be.

She asked for advice

True, but from people who were not subject matter experts and who clearly recognised that situation's complexity. She elected only to follow the advice given that provided the outcome she wanted. She did not elect to follow the part of the advice given which indicated their professional knowledge limitations.

Raynor paid the tax

Eventually. She could have paid it much earlier, but chose to delay thus muddying the waters on liability. Was this because she did not have the money, or was it a proactive decision to delay so that she could argue an 'I'm not liable' position, notwithstanding tax law?

I could be missing something and Raynor is in fact a 'victim of circumstance'. And yet I feel very uncomfortable about the fact that she could end up being PM, with all that might entail for people who don't buy in to her divisive politics.

Personally, I don't trust either her or the decision on her tax affairs. Given the implications of a lenient HMRC decision there is also clear public interest in being given facts relating to the case which are not currently publicly known.

The only slack I can cut for her is the fact that this was not an artificial tax avoidance scheme she was involved in. Also, she avoided making a claim about not being able to sweat...

There is a lot of editorial comment in newspapers etc. emerging today, but a better more independent one to read is this:

https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2026/05/14/why-did-hmrc-not-charge-angela-rayner-a-penalty/

OK this is off topic, maybe. If a certain course of action is followed it can have all sorts of tax consequences for anyone who want to do better for themselves.

Today's news on the result of Raynor's HMRC investigation is a careful bit of news management. However, on the face of it, it looks like a 'two-tier' type situation where someone in the public eye gets away with a more lenient treatment than the general public. To be exonerated HMRC would have had to judge that she took 'reasonable care' in her CGT related tax affairs. This is on the back of the fact that her original 'we are being made scapegoats' advisors, Verrico & Associates', indicated that she should get a second opinion. They also asserted that Raynor did not ask them to assess the trust's tax implications in the first place. In other words Raynor provided them with very narrow terms of reference for calculating liability. I'm looking in from the outside, obviously. However, even on the facts that are known it looks like the definition of 'reasonable care' has been stretched beyond the limit.

And this is someone who could end up being PM, with potentially catastrophic consequences not just for taxpayers but for the economy and the UK as a whole. Bond yields on the ten year is already over 5%, higher than the Truss episode. God knows what it could reach with the threat of a Raynor premiership.

I find negative comments as useful as positive ones if there is a sound basis for them, and it's not just a ramp/de-ramp situation.

At the moment the context for the share price is a target area of 35-37p, albeit we don't have many 'professional' valuations to go off. I don't find 35p too unreasonable as things stand, and there are obvious other upside factors to consider.

I can buy AISC being about $1200, although MC had around $900 or so (from memory) for many years. Energy costs and other production costs have no doubt gone up since those days. The average of the banks' expected outcome for gold is over $6000 by December, and more than a few sector columnists are looking for $10000 by 2030. The gold bull is taking a breather at the moment, but likely to spring into life again around September. My guess is that the MTL SP will stay in the 12.5 - 15p range until that time, and then spring into life driven by twin effects of a reviving bull in gold, and speculation on first gold from La India.

As results start to appear on the exploration side, and the prospects of Nicaragua being a true 5m oz resource firm up, it will put MTL on the radar of the majors. I'm not predicting a bid, but 5moz is traditionally the point where large mid-caps and majors in the sector get interested. Nicaragua is mining friendly and not that far away from the markets. We know that the bigger outfits are constantly on the lookout for quality resource prospects to replenish their reserves. MTL would now fit the bill with more of that 5m prospect effectively proven. And if we get one, another could well be not far behind it; a bidding war.

Personally, I've come to like MTL and would prefer it to stay independent, but that's a choice might not have much influence over. I'm not in the least perturbed by the current drift. As mentioned previously, shares like MTL don't go up or down in a linear way. You usually get sudden leaps and drops driven by news events, in a framework of drift up or down as market makers and day traders have fun with small moves either way.

Short of war breaking out and affecting the politics and physical progress in Nicaragua, I don't see much that can hinder progress to first gold. There are bound to be some unforeseen issues, but I think it's fair to assume that they will be managed and there should not be too much in the way of delay when they do occur. My overall impression is that management know what they are doing.

AI fun.

Give me some share price forecasts for Helix Exploration for the next year.

The consensus 12-month share price forecast for Helix Exploration (LSE: HEX) is 93.00p, representing a projected upside of over 150% from its recent trading baseline of roughly 36.50p.Broker consensus across major platforms like Stockopedia and Investors Chronicle is highly aligned on this target. However, as a small-cap AIM exploration firm, the targets vary depending on the forecasting model used:

Summary of 12-Month Price Projections

Key Drivers Behind the Forecasts

Investment Risks to Consider

While the target implies spectacular returns, analysts classify Helix Exploration as a high-volatility asset. Because the company does not yet generate steady, mature profits, it has an empty Price-to-Earnings (P/E) history. A failure to hit commercial flow rates on their drilling sites would trigger a swift re-rating down toward the 26.75p floor.

I'm also not convinced that more than doubling reflects the Qatar effect. I think we could see three figures, assuming no hiccups of course.

There isn't much to say at the moment, other than my best guess on share price performance will be one of treading water in May to August, before seeing it spring into life around mid-September. It's frustrating watching the SP bounce between around 12.5p and 15p, depending on the sentiment of the day, but I don't think the fundamental gold production story will really catch the market's attention until first gold is almost upon us. Day traders know they can come in and out over the next few months, and my guess is that's what they are doing - bouncing the price up and down within the range, and taking small profits at the expense of the bored and the less patient. July and August are often 'summer doldrums' type periods, though I do accept that the Trump factor could impact sentiment across the board this year. A progress RNS would help give the price a bit of a boost, though it's not essential. In the absence of hard news, positive or negative, it's a fair assumption that the project is on track. Unlike the SP performance my own guess is that projection completion will be roughly linear between now and December. It would be nice to think that the SP would track that linearity, but that's not really how the market works. The small cap SP world is one of jumps and drops rather than linear increases in value. We'll probably stay range-bound for weeks, or even months, until that hard news update, or a sudden Trump inspired catalyst that sparks a gold rush.

Don't expect too much and the won't be disappointed. Indeed, as Christmas 2026 starts to loom the surprises should all be on the positive side. Sit back and enjoy the forthcoming summer weather.

I also asked it to forecast the price of gold on December 31st 2026:

'Gold Price Forecasts for December 31, 2026

Institutional targets for the final quarter of 2026 reflect a broadly bullish outlook driven by central bank demand and geopolitical uncertainty.

Institution Year-End 2026 Forecast (USD/oz) Key Rationale

J.P. Morgan $6,300 Structural demand and sustained central bank accumulation.

Wells Fargo $6,100 – $6,300 Recently revised upward from ~$4,600 due to macro volatility.

UBS $6,200 Potential for $7,200 in an "upside scenario" if tensions escalate.

Bank of America $6,000 Structural bull market based on de-dollarisation.

Goldman Sachs $5,400 Reaffirmed target following "sticky" ETF and central bank inflows.

Deutsche Bank $4,950 – $6,000 Forecasts vary, with some strategists seeing a climb to $6,000.

Based on the institutional targets provided, the average forecast for the price of gold on December 31st, 2026, is approximately $6,031 per troy ounce. This average is heavily influenced by the cluster of high-end predictions around the $6,000 to $6,300 mark from major players like J.P. Morgan, UBS, and Bank of America. Even when including more conservative estimates like Goldman Sachs ($5,400) or Deutsche Bank's lower bound ($4,950), the consensus remains firmly above the $6,000 threshold.

Key Averages Breakdown:

Top-Tier Bullish Average: $6,233 (based on JPM, Wells Fargo, and UBS).

Broad Consensus Average: $6,031 (averaging all listed institutional targets).

Keep in mind that while the average is high, gold is currently in a consolidation phase following its January peak, meaning much of this "average" growth is expected to trigger in the latter half of 2026.

My own target has been $6000 since January.

A bit of fun with Gemini AI. I asked it to forecast MTL's share price for the next year or so, by month:

'As of early May 2026, Metals Exploration PLC (MTL) is in a pivotal transition period. While its legacy Runruno mine in the Philippines is approaching its end of life with rising costs, its new La India project in Nicaragua is currently ahead of schedule, with first gold production firmly on track for December 2026.Analysts are highly bullish on this transition, with 12-month consensus price targets averaging 36p to 37p, representing a potential upside of approximately 180% from the current price of ~13p.

Forecasted Share Price by Month (2026–2027)

The following forecast is based on current analyst consensus targets and the "de-risking" milestones associated with the Nicaragua start-up.

MonthEst. Price (GBp) - Key Operational Milestones

May 2026 (Now)12.96p - Current trading; Runruno facing BIOX circuit headwinds.

June–July 2026 14p – 16p - La India mechanical installation phase; end of Runruno remediation.

Aug–Sept 2026 18p – 22p - Site energisation at La India; dry commissioning begins.

Oct–Nov 2026 25p – 29p - Anticipated "Early Gold" Window. Full-scale wet commissioning.

Dec 2026 32p - 36p - Official First Gold Pour. Peak analyst target realization.

Jan–Mar 2027 37p – 42p - Commercial ramp-up; first revenue from Nicaragua operations.

Q2–Q4 2027 45p+ - Steady-state production; Runruno closure largely priced in.

Analysis of Growth Drivers

The "Nicaragua Bump": Construction is already 40% complete and ahead of schedule as of April 2026. If first gold occurs in October or November instead of December, the price rally currently forecasted for late Q4 will likely accelerate into late Q3.

Runruno Wind-Down: Production at Runruno is declining, with AISC rising to $2,067/oz. While this is a drag on short-term sentiment, the market is shifting its valuation to the 145 Koz per annum potential of La India.

Gold Price Tailwind: With gold forecasted to reach an average of $6,031/oz by the end of 2026, the cash flow potential from Nicaragua's 1.8 Mtpa throughput upgrade could drive the share price significantly above the current 37p analyst ceiling by 2027.'

These are not my forecasts and may well be 'AI hallucination'. Nonetheless...

It's been a while since I dropped on this board, but the RNS is as good a time as any to comment. From what I can see it looks like a sell on news situation combined with Dupax not looking quite as good as some hoped. Nonetheless, Runro seems to be slightly ahead of where I expected it to be, and is pretty much within what most expect over the next 12 months.

Hannan, Panmure, Investing.com and Stockopedia all seem to be in the 32p - 37p target share price valuation area, and there doesn't seem much in today's RNS that would cause concern. Energy costs will increase in the short term, although if we look past the Iran situation and into early next year with a bit of luck that will be in the rear view mirror, and energy prices should have eased; perhaps not to pre-war levels, but not in the range we are seeing today. We could also have seen the gold price return to its $6000 trajectory, currently blown off course, but not sunk. I've still got my fingers crossed on this one.

In essence 13/14p looks like a bit of a aberration. As we move into the summer months we should see MTL start its re-rating process. Maybe 20p by this time was a bit too optimistic, although few of us had Iran on the radar late last year. I'm now thinking 20p around October/November rather than the summer months. 35p looks more like a late 2027 or a 2028 aspiration, than a few months after going into production. There are still costs to pay, 50% of the CVRs next July for example, and a first dividend may not be until 2029. The current SP looks a bit light but given where we are perhaps 17p/18p is still a bit of a stretch. 15p could be about it for now, plus or minus a couple of pence according to the day's sentiment.

According to Felix Prehn, Turkey had to sell 10% of its gold in 10 days due to the Iran war pushing up the price of oil (they import 90%). In essence they had to, to pay for it. Turkey won't be the only state that has had to do this, which of course helps explain the price pressure on PoG in recent weeks. Gold will come back once things settle down. If anything, the costs of the war will add that little bit extra to the US debt and reinforce pressure on the USD (temporarily seen as a safe haven). The end of this year for MTL will look a whole lot different than it does now, and even now it's looking pretty good...

In terms of short term prices, the place in the world to watch is tiny:

Kharg Island.

Watch that space. If either side gets it wrong the price of oil could reach levels never seen before. People reading this will already know what I'm getting at. Those that don't might want to do a bit of research.

Like most people I'm hoping for an early conclusion to the Iran situation.

The mainstream media have not honed in on this yet, but it could be key to bringing everything to a rapid conclusion:

Kharg Island.

Watch that space.

Another contextual article:

https://cen.acs.org/business/specialty-chemicals/Iran-war-threatens-global-helium/104/web/2026/03

As has been alluded to already Qatar supplies a lot of the world's helium. According to this March 5th 2026 article in 2024 it supplied 36% of the global helium supply.

https://www.share-talk.com/qatars-sizable-helium-share-spotlights-concentration-risk-as-iran-war-and-hormuz-tensions-escalate/

I know HEX is still an early stage producer, but I'm surprised that the share price has not jumped much higher than it has today. I can only assume that the word has not yet got out. Even without the supply shock spike the trajectory should still be on a steeper incline.

On a short term basis a few more days of mass media panic relating to Hormuz and we could see the share price over 40p, with even more rises in prospect. I'm starting to get the feeling that the Iran situation, notwithstanding domestic and international pressure on Trump, is going to go on for longer than has been war gamed by the Pentagon.

I'm starting a new thread rather than respond to others, so anyone not interested in the Iran angle can ignore. Personally, I do think Iran is having more of a impact on MTL sentiment than what's happening within the company, hence I like to look at Gulf angle.

Hormuz closing has pushed up oil prices beyond $90, and could potentially push them to $120. This will have an impact on AISC, if it sustains; I hope it's a spike situation that will evaporate once Iran settles down and Hormuz opens. We need it to open. The global economy can't take reduced oil production for long.

As for the war, my thinking (driven by what I read and listen to) suggests Trump has until about March 20th to numb the IRG into submission. Two weeks from now at least three major issues are on the table. The first is domestic USA; the anti-war political rhetoric internally will be pressurising a war settlement. Trump needs a quick win. I don't buy the '4 - 6 weeks' talk. Secondly, my guess is internally Iran will be in even more chaos (which will help the Trump agenda). Immediate food supplies (where they are needed in the cities) will have gone, with the potential that hungry Iranians will not be deterred with IRG threats. Thirdly, more than a handful of countries will be out of oil, with some Asian sovereigns having less than 15 days strategic reserves. This will not be easily remedied, as within the next few days more Gulf producers will have shut down production. It takes a lot longer to start it up again. The implications for the global economy of a prolonged production shutdown are not good. In other words there will be pressure all round to bring this thing to a conclusion this month, not next.

Gold and silver are far lower than perhaps would have been the case because there is a short term safety trade in play. In other words the USD. However, the USD is in long term decline, so once the military action shows signs of reducing my belief is that normal buying will resume. In my mind this means a return to gold and silver moving up against all currencies, especially the USD. I still have a $6000 target for gold this year, although Iran could well push it beyond that, perhaps even to $6500.

Everything I'm seeing at the moment suggests MTL will be north of 20p by Christmas. This is a buy and/or sit tight situation, not a sell and hope to move in later opportunity. When the rebound happens the move could be far faster than you can get in. I'm still expecting MTL and wider market volatility over the next two weeks, but after that I'm expecting better times for all, especially those having to endure the bombing.

As for today, the 'big one' could be a softening up exercise for 'boots on the ground', although that decision is a big one for the Trump administration. Iran is half the size of Europe. I suppose 'friendly' forces and the U.S. could take a piece of it and declare a new Iranian government, but I don't see a full occupancy as viable at the moment.

Gold will bounce back, as will the general stock market. The thrashing everything took today is a classic example of what happens in a panic. In 2026 algo driven selling has tanked prices across the board. As sure as night follows day those very same algos will step in and start buying again, in accordance with how each one has been programmed. This is why we don't get elongated depressions in price. I'm guessing gold selling may also be down to margin calls realising cash that may or may not be required to cover other positions. I've seen this so many times, more recent examples being the Covid panic, and the Ukraine invasion. It won't take long for markets to realise that Iran is not the end of the financial world. It is, as has already been stated, a temporary reset. Cash may sit on the side for a few hours, days, or even weeks. I highly doubt it will be months.

As for how long the Iran affair will last, my own guess is week three of March. Too many pundits see the operation in terms of a military exchange. What will really bring Iran to its knees will be a lack of food, and essential supplies. Hormuz is closed to Iran food imports. As with many counties, including the UK, the grocery shelves will have emptied within a couple of weeks. That is when the real pain starts. The IRG may have its own strategic supplies, but the Iranian people will be out on the streets as the country (hopefully temporarily) spirals into general (real or fear of) famine driven societal disorder. Not this week, not next, but I highly doubt there are enough food supplies in the country to feed 90m people until the end of March. The clock is ticking. At the moment the IRG still thinks the enemy is the U.S. and Israel, when their real foe is the looming threat of famine. It is indeed an existential moment for the IRG, and the time is coming when the majority of Iranians are going to take action to save themselves.

Sit tight. By Q4 this will simply be a dark period of history. I honestly believe the light is at the end of the tunnel both for Iran and MTL.

There isn't a lot of identifiable opposition in Iran, which is why I think the U.S. will work with the remnants of the regime, providing it does as its told. The MEK, a small armed leftist group, are active inside Iran althoughj from what I can see they are too small a group to be materially significant.

My view of a moderate increase in Brent is evolving. Attacks on oil tankers will assuredly make traders nervous. The upward momentum could be more than I initially thought.

I've been trawling around market commentators on what might happen on Monday morning. The spoiler alert is that no one has a clue, least of all me. The closing of Hormuz should theoretically push the price of oil up, although much of the (20% of the world's) oil that transits the channel goes to Asia. The 'West' is ostensibly cossetted with North and South American sourced supply. Banks have suggested $100 oil, although more moderate views suggest perhaps only a $5 or $10 premium, with some even suggesting that the risk has been priced in, and that we might even see a sell off. It has my head spinning, as each position has some strategic justification; a fair argument.

My view is now a moderate increase, more in the few USD range rather than something dramatic. I'm guessing a similar small sympathetic move upwards in RKH. although possibly indistinguishable from what we've seen since the funding announcements. The argument for a faster upward movement in RKH's share price over time is finely balanced. If Trump pulls off his strategic move on Iran, and manages to effect control over its oil supplies, then perhaps we won't see much impact at all on RKH. On the other hand, if the regime survives without becoming an effective vassal state to the U.S. then perhaps oil supplies in the Americas become more valuable. It really is a difficult call which way things will go.

There is some interesting discussion to be had. I don't proclaim to know the answers and would welcome views that could influence my own, especially at this very uncertain time.

Every day is a school day.