Member Info for dictumdedicto

Alma,

On the face of it you are right. However, the reality is more nuanced. The employer contribution of 15% does come from council tax (plus the central block 'grant' which is itself substantially derived from business rates). Unfortunately, in many, many, cases the employee and employer contributions are not enough to fund the promises made. These funding gaps are then addressed through 1) increasing local council tax 2) putting the national begging bowl out for more central money and 3) investing pension assets - both reckless and otherwise, depending on the desperation / recklessness of individual council policy. Some councils have basically gone bust because of their imprudent approach towards investing assets.

I don't blame council employees for this. It's simply yet another example of the country living beyond its means, and basically conning the population into believing they can have things that have not been affordable for decades. The current regime is now in the hot seat. Like all its predecessors it has chosen to avoid taking the difficult decisions on cutting benefits, while taking the easy ones associated with raising taxes and borrowing money. The tax jackboot of the state is being stamped down on its population.

I'll drop the subject and revert to the topic of Argentina and Israel.

A late family member worked as a councillor. It might be 40% in some areas, but 8 years ago in ours the proportion of council tax paid to former council employees was 28%. Non of this is disclosed. To my knowledge not a single council in the country actually publishes the increasing amount paid to former employees. Actual pensioner costs are hidden in segmental analysis. In other words of what they say is spent on waste collection, social services etc. 28% is actually paid to pensions - hidden in plain sight. It's not the pensioners fault. They were made promises by past generations of corrupt executive staff, partly coerced by public sector union pressure. The jig isn't up yet, but it is coming. Unfortunately, national and local government will firstly work to eradicate private sector pensions first (Gordon Brown fired the first shot back in New Labour days). Private sector employees will be expected to pay more to keep public sector employees in clover, while they themselves head for impecunity; unable to afford pensions of their own. This is not a prediction; it's already happening.

Unfortunately, we are past that.

Debt interest is running at about £170bn annually (don't believe the £120bn often quoted) while it looks like Reeves is now borrowing around £200bn. In essence the last year or two of the Tories and the last 18 months of Labour have been periods of monetising debt. Long gilts are already in the 5.5% - 6% zone and could start heading towards 'game over' territory of 10% around budget time. I see QE on steriods in the future, double digit inflation, public sector strikes and the Laffer Curve effect kicking in via frozen tax thresholds (i.e. higher taxes brings in less income). As a point of interest the unfunded public sector pensions commitment stands at £2.6trillion, not a lot different to national debt.

A rather animated guy a the gym this morning was convinced that Labour's strategy is to "get rid of the middle class". In other words impoverish pensioners and middle income earners so that you create a large voting dependency class, a tiny minority of very rich people, and a governing political class. Given the appalling quality of the people the current regime brings in to government (Torsten Bell etc.) it's getting pretty had to make a counter argument.

I heard an LSE economist 'professor' try and argue that the Laffer Curve has been discredited. In other words if you tax 100% you get all the income there is. The guy is a grade 1 clown and clearly not to be trusted. The Laffer Curve is a fact. It's only the calculation of where the optimum tax collection point is that is debateable, given that variables other than pure tax may also have an influence.

Argentina was on the brink of financial collapse just days ago. In essence, the Falklands makes a useful distraction from the country's real problems, as it always has. Netanyahu remains unhappy with Starmer's two state non-solution recognition, but he can't actually say it himself. I'm also pretty sure that he will be wired in to the benefits Navitas will get (and Israel as a whole for that matter) from exploiting South Atlantic oil. Meanwhile, Milei will also be aware of the oil exploitation steam roller coming downstream and likely sees benefit in putting the poison in whenever he sees an opportunity. It's basically global politics at play being acted by the worst set of clowns the world has ever seen.

In reading about this stuff that phrase 'dumb and dumber' keeps resonating through my brain.

All we've really got to cling on to at the moment are the June 2025 presentation numbers which were 2025, 74,000e, and 2026, 68,000e. As for today's share price, we are still a year away from production. We might see another spike or two beforehand (an 18p spike Q4 this year is not out of the question, in my opinion) but the real fun is probably in Q3 2026 as the countdown to first La India gold kicks off.

I used the 'January 2025 Study' number in the June 2025 presentation. The study suggested 126e for 2027, 132 for 2028 and 154 for 2029; the 145 is an average over 12.4 years. It will go up and down over that period. It's just one of those many variables that could change, albeit not all will be to our benefit (AISC could increase as well). Agreed that Dupax could well change those numbers significantly, but at this stage I'm just using the (mostly) La India stuff.

It's really hard to rationalise a potential share price, but I'm going to have a play with some numbers. Also, for the purist accountants out there I am going to be a little footloose with the NPV\DCF approach. All being well it will provoke a few alternative views/approaches, and a bit of critique of my very back of the envelope numbers. Not that I think a highly sophisticated model would do much better. They are often not much better than the back of an envelope, although I must admit that seeing a big spreadsheet with a complex array of assumptions and calculations does make most people feel a lot better.

Average production over 12 years - 145,000 (per last presentation)

Average PoG. Let's say $4000

Dore discount. Let's say 10%

Average per ounce $3600

145,000 at $3600 $522m

Take a twelve year mine life - $6.264bn (I want to keep it simple. No DCF/NPV)

Average AISC (which includes all capex & mine sustaining costs) $1176 (per last presentation)

145k x 12 x $1176 = $2.046bn

Net before taxation etc. ($6246 - $2046) $4200.

Now you do need to take a whack out for tax and the inevitable 'other costs' that always seem to appear, but you get the general drift.

We have 2.93bn shares in play, and no need of further issues.

4.2bn/2.93bn = $1.43

Convert that to GBP and you have over a £1, £1.06.

It's very, very simplistic, ignores a few accounting rules and yet it does provide an inkling of the scale of the opportunity. There are hundreds of variables to consider, not least of which is PoG, and yet I can't help feeling that we are only at the start of the share price journey. Taxes will reduce that £1 figure, and yet the chances are that gold with breach $5000 in that 12 year time horizon. I'm also aware that the broader investment community, at least in the UK, is always a bit wary of gold miners. It won't admit full valuation. But I do think a figure of 40p, maybe 50p, is achievable in future years, and who knows, if gold does go to the moon even a £1 may be within reach.

I rest my case. Alternative views invited in the spirit of a healthy exchange of views.

Sorry, I got a spike on the app. It hit $3900 but now sits at $3784. Not quite there, but close enough.

Up another $30. We are at $3800 as I type so I'll call time on this thread. While it's good to watch it continue to climb it does feel like it's defying gravity. I can only assume that it's a lot more than the DXY falling, and that we have some serious gold buying taking place across the world. Many of the major banks have now thrown in the towel and are forecasting $4000. That looked on the ambitious six months ago, but now looks like something that could happen within the next month. Nonetheless, I still think we could see a temporary high around that figure, followed by a 5 - 10% selloff; perhaps back to $3600. We'll then see another slow rise into the $4000s in 2026. Even if that doesn't happen, which I don't think is where the balance of probabilities is, a gold price of $3500 - $3600 will do wonders for MTL's operating statements next year. 20p is coming, with twice that a possibility over the next couple of years - even without further massive increases in the PoG.

At 12.5p this is potentially a triple bagger if you have a bit of patience. As an ex-Condor holder I know all about patience...

Topical:

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/argentine-assets-soar-bessent-offers-milei-lifeline

$3739 / £2769 as I type. It's way ahead of where I thought it would be in September so it looks like it could hit $4000 in Q4. Nonetheless, when you get these situations (overshoots) you usually get a pullback. My guess is now that we will see $4000 in Q4, but we may well see the year out below it. It's unlikely to go up in a straight line.

If you track the DXY YTD the USD is pretty clear. So long as this continues, by tradition, gold should incline. The stuff I'm reading suggests that US $ policy is to pin the DXY at around 90 (i.e. whatever that means in its constituent currencies). At the moment it looks like there is still some way to go:

https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/index/DXY

I still don't think the wider investment community have realised what this means for gold producers share prices. They will in time.

You need to bear in mind that releasing an RNS does cost money. What that fee is depends on all sorts of things, depending on how you actually release the news. It can be expensive on a PAYGO basis so companies tend to only put news out when it really matters.

Gold sits at $3682 as I type, and is up £45 today at £2735. It's overbought and overvalued (according to some) and yet it still keeps moving upwards. I'm still looking for $3800+ in the next quarter and have not seen much to change my mind. While the next set of MTL results may show a slight decline the ones after that could well be stellar if PoG maintains its bull. I'm holding fast with crossed fingers on 18p by the close of this year.

Just out:

"All roads lead to gold"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4r4HqJ6-qU

He's not alone in presenting the case for a lower USD and higher gold.

I've been assuming 46, but was hoping that some new info would give me a better deal.

21 years and still counting. As with many of the old hands I've now also 'retired', whatever that actually means these days. As per others, I would also like to see Marlonmonkey reappear; maybe even 'Oilbrat'!

$3682 as I type. Record highs again, including over £2707 in GBP. It's taking some time for the investing world to catch-on to the implications of the gold bull run, but it will.

So Gold closed at $3643. $3800 by Christmas now looks like a conservative estimate, with the upper end of the range now looking doable. I don't see the answer in TA, at least not in gold; I see the main driver the policy the US will adopt over the next six months in USD depreciation. As many have said in the past, gold usually does well when the USD doesn't. I did see one analyst this week suggest that US tariffs will not really have the desired effect while the USD is overvalued. In other words the USD needs to fall to the extent of the average increase in tariffs levied since April. Alas, I don't know what that average is, although I suspect it's some way into double digits. And if you accept the USD/tariffs premise, and the traditional USD/gold tradeoff, then we could have a move well into the $4000s next year. It's not a prediction, but £5000 gold might well be a lot closer than many think. I had thought $5000 by 2030, but it's only taken a couple of years for the leap from $2000 to $3600. There will be selloffs on the way there, but the economic drivers suggest that the underlying bull trend will remain in place for some years. The gold bull shows no sign of an emotionally driven parabolic rise, the usual sign of a top coming, just yet. Indeed, it just looks like a typical 'climb a wall of worry' situation. Not that I think the fundamental economic drivers on either side of the Pond are about to change for the better. And I've not even mentioned debt levels...

We've seen some healthy profit taking this week on MTL's shares. It's a good sign. Even without a couple of good news releases I think we'll see some longer term buyers take an interest over the next few weeks. I still have an 18p target by Christmas, with some crossed fingers that it might just get to 20p. As for 2026, you can almost pick a number as the countdown to Nic production commences.

The U.S. Non-Farms Payroll has just reported the worst revision in its history. In other words lower the US economy is actually a lot worse than expected, which translates into lower interest rates and another push up on gold. It will take a day or two for that to sink in. Gold looks overbought but with that kind of news I'm not seeing a selloff coming.

MTL has to be a screaming buy at the moment. Gold sitting at $3654 as I type and MTL potentially seeing its first pour only a year from today. I'm guessing that by summer 2026 most of the rise in the SP, anticipating that pour, will already be priced in. The real opportunity for a quick profit is really over the next 3 - 9 months. Gold, however, remains a wild card. If we see a good hike over $4000 in spring next year the increased value opportunity could last a lot longer.

With obvious implications for MTL's share price.

I thought $3800 by the year end was ambitious when gold oscillated between $3200 and $3400 during the summer months. Everything I'm seeing at the moment suggests I'm actually being too cautious in a personal target at the low end of that range. Gold sits at $3627 as I type, and still looking strong. I must admit to not expecting a move starting until late September\early October; again too cautious. If it keeps moving at its current rate I'll be embarrassingly off by Christmas.

It was the same with Rockhopper. I had a 75p target on FID, and I'm already about 10p below (FID not yet announced).

For reference, I'm still thinking 18p by Christmas on MTL. Take that with a pinch of salt; you know my track record...