Member Info for esduk

Thanks. Was there a first post before the one you shared Jimzi? Sorry, not on X

Yeh Silver, is going crazy. I see a steady rise to over $5,000 for Gold now. Silver likely at $100 by end of January.

Jut in, it was 2.7% for all goods and 2.6% for core. So slight beat and decent for Gold and Silver.

Apologies, that was AI getting things wrong and using last month's data despite saying it was the 13th January release. Data comes out in 6 minutes. Silver shot up, so I assumed it had already come out...

CPI was 2.7% or 2.6% for core, both below expectations.

Thanks speedy. Yes I assume it will be more of a factor for silver, where the short interest is higher in relative terms.

Speedy, any thoughts on the recent move from CME to switch from fixed ($) to notional (%) margins on futures contracts? Is this a neutral move or does this make it harder to short Gold and Silver, particularly if you are having to put up 9% as collateral (for Silver)? I think it is 5% for Gold.

I think it just depends on what methodology you are using to calculate your margin / profit / cash flow. If you are looking to calculate FCF then you would use revenues (both Gold and Copper) minus cash costs, but as AI suggests in my post below, the AISC is a metric to allow people too focus on the cost of producing the primary commodity (in our case Gold) and therefore the calculation is set up to use by-products to reduce the cost of producing that primary commodity. But yes, you can't count the revenues from by-products if you are using the AISC methodology to measure your costs.

So if using the AISC methodology rather than a FCF calc, you should be using the ounces of Gold produced x achieved sales price minus ounces of Gold produced x AISC to get your margin before corporation tax. Copper revenue shouldn't be included as it's a credit that reduces the AISC.

Courtesy of AI:

All-in Sustaining Cost (AISC) is a non-GAAP metric used in the mining industry, particularly for gold, that primarily accounts for credits from other metals (by-products) as a deduction from the total production costs of the main commodity.

This treatment, recommended by the World Gold Council's guidance, is intended to reflect the net cost of producing the primary metal (e.g., gold) after accounting for the value recovered from secondary metals (e.g., copper or silver) found within the same ore body.

That'll help the AISC too then.

As copper is a credit, higher copper prices should lower the AISC, so we might also expect a lower AISC than the $2,155 we got in the September quarter.

Ricardo, the September quarter results were as follows:

September quarter sales of 82,199oz Au and 3,277t Cu at weighted average realised prices of $5,277/oz gold and $12,552/t copper, generating net revenue of $476 million.

So I think your pricing assumptions for the December quarter look quite conservative given Gold's big run up through September and October. Looking at the Aus $ Gold price chart I'd say the average for the December quarter is likely to be in the $6,200-$6,300 range. I don't have the same Aus $ data for the copper price, but it was a lot higher in the December quarter (particularly in December) than the September quarter by the looks of the charts.

Fallen back a bit after some selling to end the day, but I'm happy with an 8% rise, at least compared to the long drift downwards we've had in the last few weeks. Will be interesting to see the delayed reported trades this evening.

Interesting, it seems to have changed since I posted. At the time I'm pretty certain it did have blue / red and % in the top left box.

Yes, watched that the other day, definitely recommend. Clive Thompson is very reputable guy (as talking heads go) imo and Nick Ward provides some great insights.

I like the new formatting of the Share Chat page btw. Nice to have the price info and daily chart at the top of the page.

And another to 47p on the bid.

Well so far today, it's the big delayed reported buys that seem to be driving this upwards. Another tick up to 46p bid.

Yeh I'm not particularly worried about it and have a lot of experience of construction and commissioning slipping so agree with you there. I was just suggesting that I don't think the company have commissioned the plant and not RNS'd it (as Flundra posited). I think they will RNS it when it is commissioned.

This is also a complex, multi-layered process as evidenced by Tyseley, where some of the magnet press equipment was only being commissioned in September, a few months after the plant began commercial operations (started producing NdFeB powder rather than finished magnets).

I expect they will have commissioned quite a lot of the individual equipment in Germany, but that they are not in a position to commission the full NdFeB powder production line quite yet. The magnet production line will then presumably follow. This stuff is incredibly complex and shows you how hard it is to successfully set up production in the West from scratch. Luckily we have the ex-China world leading experts in our team to guide us through it all.