Member Info for Dip666

I don't think it was Speedy - NCM were hoping to gain 5% for far less by 'winning 'the Option Exercise and then perhaps hoping for a SP crash to snap up GGP based on a frankly non FMV price discovery event. GGP's previous BOD really needed their heads checking in the structure of what we know about the Option Exercise - seemed in hindsight as if tailor made to sell off the project or perhaps GGP at bargain basement prices IMO by Gervaise and explains his exit strategy :-)

NCM's new CFO then went on to describe not buying the 5% at GGP's selected option exercise valuation as outside their IRR rates of return as part of the new more predatory approach they had adopted since the exercise kicked in. I think a board battle was already in play with some wanting to put NEM on the market and get rid of Sandeep, the old CFO and others who wanted to follow through on Sandeep's plan of growth based focus - no way he would ever have wanted his empire growing plans to end IMO.

Sandeep no doubt cracked the whip to try and improve NEM from how it was during his stewardship so would have been easy to get some bullying allegations and get him forced out from what I saw of the corporate shenanigans going on and then major shareholders voting at the last AGM in relation to Exec salaries etc. to force him out . I don't think it was ever Sandy Balls that was the 'enemy' personally - but others who wanted to sell NCM vs build it into the future and hwo they treated GGP played into wanting all of it to aid easier selling than having us in the mix with Telfer/Hav perhaps.

SP is based on sentiment and often leaves logic at the door - so we need a deal considered accretive once Hav wil be in production, fair price paid for Telfer as the foundation and then the many different factors that affect a SP to aid a rerate IMO.

No one knows how much or how little that might be until a deal is put in front of us to start trying to calculate and forecast various scenario's. Many of us LTH are the numpties who thought GGP could kick the LC Orphan Period and poor sector, asset and market sentiment aside - so we should have learned by now to assess GGP within the norms of any other investment in this sector I hope and have more realistic forecasts and valuations :-)

Charles Archer was asked in his TG group about the planned podcast with Aliens and said he hasn't been able to secure one to secure one for lack of trying and thinks it might be because they want to wait until the next major RNS before any interviews now...

Agree with James that if true deal entails Newmont takinga. Stake in GGP that this would be the reason why but could also be Newmont taking the corporate approach of acting as if things will continue as they are as owners of both assets until a deal is signed and delivered :-)

FREDDIE - You're well aware of me having this opinion for quite a long while now as my posting history proves, stop sh*t stirring mate lol

I've never had a problem being analytical and changing my opinion and strategy as events unfold or from lessons learnt. These boards would be much more useful if folk could actually debate rather than argue but another mistake i made since the first lockdown was spending too much time chatting on these platforms - also something I've rectified of late albeit I'll continue to share anything useful in future once we have something to talk about of course lol

Hi Bamps - truth is that with every stock market bubble or discovery hype there are always those left sitting through the orphan period, I'd rather it not be me next time with a GGP type position! What I've learnt these last few years leads me to believe that the LC and PPSS should be 100% factored into strategy vs holding through any Orphan Period if you've multi-bagged.

I usually never invest in any speculative or main market stock to hold for multiple years - perhaps GGP will be different but I suspect at some point in time in future once in production- it will make sense to slice or exit just as with every other stock I ever owned BUT I hope to be proved wrong.

Iot, you haven't closed a profit on the markets ever or succeeded in any endeavour in your miserable life...hence this banal baiting you do online you sad individual ;-)

Ace when it comes to investing it is always a gamble as you can lose money overnight and not just on AIM

Why I've never spoken about GGP as something I expect to be invested in for decades, I move from main market to more speculative stocks as macro and other factors suggest to me and had I followed usual playbook I would have sold in early 2021 here...

If in future no matter whatever the SP goes too and it makes sense to sell here using my usual strategies I will in future. Newmont was not immune to the last few years sentiment alo g with GGP and neither will either be in future if mining, market or asset sentiments depress them

I've built such a better understanding of valuations and LC and PPSS now that I'm confident I won't be repeating the same mistakes in future. The SP might reach 50p by year end but I'll still consider not having sold in 30's as poor judgement tbh

Why? Because one random decision by the adjudicator/s in Option Exercise might have pinned us even lower down than the valuation we 'won' with and I suspect we'd have been gobbled up by now.

Never leave things to chance and go against proven models , lesson learnt, absorbed and will be acted upon if lucky enough in future to sit through another similar journey. Never been afraid to admit when I've been wrong ;-)

Hi Antigua - if teh company grows as expected then PI's will lose their collective influence at some point - as much as you can ever expect PI'sto have uniform opinions and strategies :-)

As long as we have had growth when that happens I'll be fine but yep, there are always scenario's where a deal may be less profitable for PI's hence the current SP and lack of volume etc. and the market awaits an outcome to be judged.

We'll soon find out how much or how little we've been considered I guess, was a risk I thought deeply about about in deciding to hold on after divestment by NEM vs jumping back in if i liked the deal but I really do think it will be possible to swing an accretive deal given the Hav economics and Telfer see-saw of remediation vs offering quick production for Hav - so have decided to take the gamble as such.

LOL Ace - I won't be buying more GGP shares ever most likely as I like to go in with a heavy purchase at initial investment and then avoid averaging up for this kind of investment, plus I own more than enough of these in my ISA and SIPP so very unlikely I'll ever buy more now.

Hi Speedy - I think a deal will include a raise albeit which I can understand many feeling not ideal at these SP levels at mo but also get your point about too much debt - but the numbers are well suited for debt to be paid back rapidly so a good business case for a debt heavy package IMO in this instance.

Shaun used some analogy along the likes of shareholders owning 10 apples instead of 3 (100% vs 30% etc.) I presume without dilution at last TH, so in essence enjoying more upside once in production perhaps was what he meant as was a clumsy analogy IMO

I always use cake sizes and slices and in my head I'm hoping that any deal ends up with a much bigger cake with owning both assests fully - so even if the cake is cut into more slices due to some equity raising, that the overall slice of cake I own is larger in terms of ROI.

Hopefully my analogy makes more sense lol

Pretty quiet here and TG these days as we all wait for a deal to be announced... I think plenty of us here and TG probably agree that we have the experience and skills in the team to run Hav/Telfer and in theory the funding capability - the real question is how much is required and how the structure of the funding will impact us PI's as I just posted below in TG of where I think we are.

At the last TH I also attended Shaun seemed very confident of making a deal and funding it in a manner retail shareholders would find accretive. The proof will be in the pudding though - words are just words- the numbers will spell out exactly how accretive any deal will be and I expect there might not be completely universal agreement amongst shareholders in something so critical with varying averages and timeframes in mind amongst us.

Shaun has said the funding is ‘scalable’ but I presume that means equity also needs to be kept proportional in theory, so I am expecting some level of raise and Shaun has never expressly ruled one out as far as I recall.

Also this is a new business proposition now as funding 100% of a development project vs 30% with a major partner with inherent pros/cons plus acquiring another asset with different dynamics as already producing but with the mine near end of life (albeit might be some extension theoretically) with future remediation costs etc. needing to be considered - so I assumed scalable was in relation to Havieron alone.

Therefore extensive DD would surely need to have been conducted again IMO from existing funding partners due to planned Telfer acquisition and Shaun did also state at last TH that the banking syndicate would probably require new members, who would need to perform DD from scratch of course.

The above is why I’ve not expected a deal to be announced before Q3 amongst other reasons as matters have developed. Again, what will matter is the maths when a deal is proposed and due to the difficulty IMO in predicting a price tag and funding structure I've not built any firm expectations on how accretive it might be immediately or in mid to long-term - hopefully we find out this quarter and it is a proposed deal that will be widely considered accretive by us PI’s.

I think the level of info. shared might depend on where they are with the sales process on each asset so fingers crossed :-)

Https://www.newmont.com/investors/events-and-presentations/event-details/2024/Newmont-Second-Quarter-2024-Earnings-Conference-Call/default.aspx

LOL Ace - I did say Wyloo might as with any powerful ally might 'close the steel circle' to borrow Panama's inventive description - but as long as it's a good price I would be happy if so... and you've definitely helped me understand the Oz mining sector and royalty like Twiggy better :-)

I posted the text below*** in early October 2022 as to how I saw the funding deal and NCM at the time... hopefully we can pick up after closing in on sole ownership on the growth part, interesting to see how things have worked out compared to how it seemed they would back then, shows how crazy investing can be!

***GGP was a beleaguered small nation set on all borders by powerful forces after its abundant resources including its current large ally who while not predatory now began to see an opportunity to perhaps 'integrate' GGP into it's vast empire due to the famine (i.e. mining and market sector downturn). Our war chest and ammunition was running low keeping our enemies at bay, despite the abundant resources we still hold.

With Newcrest now becoming a potential threat we needed new allies to aid our fight and these allies are easily a match for NCM but will require tribute. NCM will now revert to a peaceful ally on their border knowing we have protection and perhaps they stay this way in future, we have a long journey ahead with a multi decade mine.

Shaun will need to be a leader who now marshals our new forces to not only protect GGP but get on the offensive and attack to grow his own empire beyond the boundaries of GGP's current borders as we come out of the famine into better times hopefully as the sector rerates.

The growth will be akin to a growing army as we move forward - it will need to be logistically managed with precision as the increasing soldiers, horses and costs of maintaining and building an empire create more mouths to feed as we continue the campaign... we'll need those same allies to keep providing ammunition and money.

Should he fail strategically by failing to nurture GGP and ever making it another likely target again alongside providing adequate tribute then these allies will simply take over as NCM had desired.

IMO, I think we have the right man in Shaun to build a new empire - but as always DYOR :-)

Arrrgh - forgot about Hanc*ck spelling again lol

max - bill was open to a jv with han**** in interviews and podcasts actually, he stated in past that being producers wasn't a main focus for the business and ideally they'd follow usual path for a junior on other projects imo.

i kind of considered han**** as a proof of concept as such and revenue channel to help prove up enough of eh/mm to gain good jv's alongside doing the same with the rest of the iron ore tenements as proved up. they've never managed to build a stable team to show they were fully pursuing production growth.

in truth, they've struggled to build a stable team full stop and execute strategy and project management at what i deem any kind of acceptable level despite the excellent assets. still time for them to sort out a deal on han**** this quarter and i think they will as it goes - but they need to accomplish a deal this quarter imo.

Sorry - rarely post on this board or LSE nowadays and keep forgetting that you need to disguise Hanc*ck spelling or their profanity filter kicks in and turns your post into all small caps ;-)

max is guessing the same as us and has shown no particular advantage in skill or experience in understanding the projects compared to anyone else here as evidenced since he appeared. having a pop at him is a waste of time though as been evident from day 1 he is eternally optimistic and either lacks analytical skills or refuses to balance his thinking so he is your typical ramper (he does after all suggest folk buy on his opinions vs dyor etc.) just as chris2 is your typical troll.

many of us stated a few years ago and continued to say that the development timelines seemed too short and took the initiative to grill ufo in live webinars and correspondence vs wasting time arguing with max or chris2 daily. they'll either pull han**** off in the next few months with some emphasis on shareholder value or they won't as things stand now - but i do expect they'll yet again miss their currently stated targets and milestones as most explorers seem to do.

these kind of investments are always binary imo and you have to accept the high risk/high gain nature of them irrespective of what messaging has come from past and present ceo's etc. we all know aim is shifty and junior explorers are very high risk. as for likes of chris2 and max - just part of the fun in these online chat platforms.

Personally I doubt whether Shaun gets much or any time with Twiggy or any direct or regular comms really, he'd be dealing with Luca and other staff under him at Wyloo predominantly IMO and I think Zoros made a relevant point this morning about taking on another ex FMG guy being interesting etc.

Whether Newcrest, Newmont or Wyloo - there are always multiple pro's and cons and scenarios with any JV partner or major cornerstone investor where some MIGHT lead to the other party at some stage in future buying out or controlling the shared asset with more sway.

All part of the usual considerations when a project such as Havieron requires a lot of money and expertise so I'm bemused why anyone holding GGP shares might now be overly concerned about it. These aren't new developments by now.

These scenarios were there from the outset with the original JV partner NCM coming in - so if an issue and someone's conclusion is more likely negative connotations from Wyloo being a cornerstone investor.... then there has been plenty of time to exit and take a lesser loss than you expect too if you have negative expectations.

I don't get it personally, you don't hold shares unless you think you're more likely to see a profit in your desired timeline surely and no excuse considering how long Wyloo have been in the picture and the divestment and sales process ongoing now.

1. - Unlikely IMO unless NM can't gain the price they feel reasonable but perhaps worth the pre-production rerate to stay invested - albeit not my first choice now but I'd stay invested probably.

2. - Originally my 2nd option as higher risk for sole ownership and everything hinges on what kind of a deal but now... we may as well go this way and secure processing so my favoured I think now BUT it does depend on what kind of a deal GGP can swing so IMO risk attached and the SP shows this.

3. - Owning all of Hav but waiting years for our production doesn't interest me one bit, why tie up money even longer here IMO for an extended orphan period when so many other opportunities? I would probably exit, sure if we make another great discovery I'll do what I did with Hav and jump in post discovery if I think we see a large SP rerate - otherwise perhaps invest again pre-production dependent on macro so probably my least desired.

4. - Not a bad option still as any new partner is going to want to get into production sooner rather than later you'd think but given the issues we've had, I'd assess this at the time dependent on the JV partner and other dynamics such as if Wyloo is the JV partner who purchased Telfer outright - so open minded for now.

5. Another JV partner completely who buys Newcrest's Hav stake and Telfer while GGP just retaining 30%... I'd probably stay invested as suspect they might choose to try buying us out as should be better than the SP at the time surely - otherwise again there should be a production rerate.

All loose strategy at the moment as much depends on assessing the JV partner and/or deals in each scenario but I have mapped out a likely strategy in my head to each. I always find having a flowchart approach to various scenarios the best way with such investments and why I like to go into painstaking detail lol

the han**** strategy as i stated a few months ago does still appear to be going along the lines of increasing resource to aid better deals to be negotiated. hopefully i am proved wrong and we see some updates in near future showing funding and development is advancing in line with the latest revision of the timelines/schedule.

Hi ace - that's correct - I meant physically bring the decline towards top of the ore body :-)