@Bishop - CFD's fall in to the category of spread betting and are often viewed as the most extreme form of gambling, get things right and you can make a fortune, get things wrong and even without leverage the losses can be huge. With conventional betting you can lose no more than the initial stake, with spread betting the more wrong you are the more you lose, there is no limit to how much you can lose unless you cover yourself with hedges and counter-bets
As a subject for academic study CFD's are fascinating but not something anybody should consider lightly. If you do like number crunching and can throw a lot of time at such things researching the spreads offered by different companies on obscure subjects, then once in a blue moon you can find occasions when two companies spreads are so far from one another there is small gap in the middle that can be exploited by simultaneously betting with both, knowing that the regardless of the outcome the more profitable bet will cover all the loses on the losing bet and still leave a sliver of guaranteed profit. However, such situations are as rare as the proverbial hen's teeth so it is probably not a worthwhile enterprise dedicating time to finding them...
Like so many things to do with gambling ... the house always wins in the end.
I personally wouldn't touch CFD's with a barge pole, but I'm more cautious than most and it's not my place to tell others what to do with their money.
pure speculation ... but a large sale preceding a director buy of roughly similar magnitude - might it simply be the family restructuring their holdings and moving money around in terms of who owns what and where and doing so at a low price to maximise some sort of tax or other allowance?
thinking of it as a sixty day exclusivity period doesn't reflect the fact that, it seems that if both parties are happy to keep talking, it can be extended indefinitely ... the sixty days is better thought of as a clause should it be felt necessary to push for a decision one way or the other.
No doubt we'll hear something when there is something to tell us.
I think talk of a £1 share price being fantasy is largely down to timescale ... yes it is fantasy to assume it is going to happen within most folk's typical timescales and it is not something you can clearly chart a clear progression towards based upon achieving X, Y and then Z.
However if you look at the potential all UFO's different projects have, and the direction folks expect commodities and currencies to head over the next twenty years or so, then I don't see anything too fantastical about saying alien COULD become a multi-billion dollar company... That is however different from saying it WILL, where over the next year or so simply regaining the 2020 high of 3p would be quite an achievement.
I'm usually the first to encourage folk to be somewhat dismissive of the importance of daily price fluctuations for any stock or commodity, considering long term trends far more important. However even I will concede that such a large daily jump up (nearly 8% as I type) is not common even for silver.
That said silver spent ages range bound between about $20/oz and $28/oz and although a big percentage move up, today's move has only brought us back up into the bottom of that range, not moved us out of the top.
The following may warrant posting again given how my comments were previously received when referenced by others across various LSE boards.
I've long been sceptical about claims of "bullish rampers" driving up share prices, or of "de-ramping trolls" driving them down. Nevertheless when prices don't behave as expected, some will throw accusations at others before admitting their own expectations were unrealistic. So let us look at a few facts.
Statistics show that active investors typically underperform passive market trackers, and that roughly three quarters lose money trading on line. A related statistic shows that with the growth of web-based share dealing, the average time an equity is held as an investment steadily fell from over a decade to just a few months. It seems logical to assume that those who chose to invest in a company will think more favourably about its prospects than those who chose not to. The narratives of LSE bulletin boards tend to be dominated by a minority of a company's most opinionated shareholders who constantly post about their hopes to the upside whilst fiercely contesting talk of downside risk or short term volatility. Yet if prices actually adhered to their endless narratives predicting imminent growth, how do so many lose money?
Based upon the numbers who do post on this board, we presumably have a far greater number of silent shareholders who don't. Our share price moves up or down with minimal correlation to the often polarised comments written here. This suggests that this board has little influence on that silent majority's beliefs or actions; that most either don't read it or that they give little credibility to things written by strangers on the internet.
Our management continue to strive to make progress in a risky sector known to advance slowly yet erratically, one where fickle investor sentiment is strongly influenced by broader macro-economic factors beyond our control. I remain a patient long term share holder here, but the above gives no clues about how our volatile share price may behave over the coming days or weeks.
So does any of the above matter? No single investor can move a share's price but we can moderate our own expectations by basing them upon facts released by the company rather than the hopes of strangers. If an investment outperforms your expectations you should have no complaints. If an investment repeatedly fails to meet your expectations at what point do you question if your own expectations have been realistic? Or at least ask yourself if you have allowed enough time to fulfil a realistic expectation?
I don't dispute that there may be one or two who naively think that by dominating the narrative with their barrage of propaganda they can actually move a share's price up or down. However, if there are complaints, I'd suggest they are mostly that prices do not move to meet the wild short term forecasts some make here, not complaints that prices do.
@Chadster - "Can someone update regarding future revenue/sales once in production."
Simply put "no" - there are all manner of factors that remain uncertain where at present all we can do is estimate based upon a series of others estimates for various future costs and prices; Hence the endless arguments, though the majority on this bulletin board do seem to feel that the optimistic predictions are more valid than pessimistic ones. Though as it seems logical to assume that those who have chosen to invest in a company will have a more positive outlook on its prospects than those who have chosen not to invest, the dominant narrative here may be no surprise.
For what it is worth, and I've previously stated that I don't expect my own predictions to be any more reliable than other people's, I expect that over time our iron ore may average out to modest profits, but that the margins won't be so high as to always protect us from the more extreme market fluctuations. As most here know, my greater interest is the Elizabeth Hill and Munni Munni complex but that is a much longer term play before we may even get early-stage forecasts on which to start estimating future revenues.
GWMO is one of those companies I've been invested in for a few years, and which is showing me a modest paper profit. However, whilst our news releases always include enough to keep me interested and invested, they never seem to include that WOW moment that excites ... so today's RNS just seem like more business as usual.
... a mix of good and bad, but overall things are heading in a positive direction increasing the odds of soon becoming the company SGZ has been threatening to become for longer than some might care to remember.
@normbeef - all very plausible and I wouldn't claim to know otherwise, but in such an uncertain sector the only prediction I'll state with confidence is that I expect most predictions (and that may include my own) to be wrong. That as such I expect many may be surprised by how things do play out.
Rightly or wrongly, and much as bits of the PM sector have been looking expectantly twitchy over the last month or so, I'm still inclined towards suggesting that we will have to wait until Spring 2023 before we see a gradual change in sentiment. As such I'll hold back from calling the bottom just yet. Also, much as I would prefer to see a gentle sustained and justified rise, I do feel a long period of price stagnation can be a breeding ground for another irrational price spike, so I wouldn't be surprised to see something crazy later in 2023 or 2024.
I'd like to repeat some thoughts that I have periodically shared over the last few years as the sentiment remains as valid today as when first written.
Like many, I've been invested here for quite a while and I remain a patient and hopeful share holder. However, with many having excitedly bought at much higher prices, and with falling prices making folk insecure, many of the posts on this board have become petty squabbling and personal insults.
So, whilst there is no reason that anyone should care about my views, might I remind people of the obvious!
1) AIM exists specifically as a fund-raising mechanism for smaller companies to try and grow. Routine share dilution is therefore par for the course for explorers looking to try and advance their inherently risky projects. If you are impatient, can't handle the uncertainty or don't trust a company's management then you shouldn't speculate in such shares.
2) Countless statistics show that almost all active investors underperform passive market trackers and about three quarters lose money trading stocks. So remember, an investment's ability to meet your expectations doesn't depend on what another, potentially ill informed, investor hopes might happen in the future, it depends upon how realistic your own expectations were at the time you decided to speculate in a volatile and unpredictable sector.
3) Bulletin boards typically represent the views of a most passionate and vocal minority, not the silent majority who actually move markets. If someone blindly acts on the opinions of strangers on the inter-net without having done their own research and taken responsibility for their own actions they will likely have already lost whatever wealth they had to invest.
4) Consequently it may be delusional to assume that overzealous arguing directly influences enough wealthy investors to drive a share price either up or down. Not that this stops that vocal minority from endlessly complaining and accusing others of "ramping" or "de-ramping" when things aren't going as they hoped for.
5) Nobody benefits from acting on emotion. Simply learn from your mistakes if you have speculated with more than you can afford to lose or allowed yourself to form unrealistic expectations about risks, valuations and/or timetables.
It is possible to respectfully debate conflicting opinions about future uncertainties by presenting opposing facts to support an alternate theory, where offensive and inarticulate comments can de-value even valid points. Sadly, many posts are simply emotional rants; posts which aren't actually making any point about investing, the economy or the company in question. We may all wish to vent frustration from time to time but no one should belittle or try to silence people with differing opinions simply to bolster their own delicate ego.
So does anybody further their own cause or credibility if what they have written makes them seem like a petulant bully squabbling in the
@tiggrrr - was only about 30 trading days ago the last time silver made an intra-day move up of >5% back at the end of July
@BB - I used to be friends with a chap who worked for Charles and so have heard a few stories about him that make me think I'd get on fine with him in the unlikely event we ever ended up moving in the same social circles ... though that is entirely different from saying he may be the same kind of monarch as his mother.
I've never been a fan of the concept of monarchy believing in meritocracy over hereditary title. Yet you look at the self-serving dross our so called democratic electoral system gives power to, and the tireless and selfless dedication to public duty shown by the queen over her lifetime and it makes you wonder...
The world has lost someone special who, for all her diminutive stature, has left a huge set of boots for Charles to fill.
as has been said, whilst this looked inevitable, it is good to get the formal confirmation.
As I said after the last placement, whether placements are a good or bad things depends entirely on what is done with the money raised. The knee-jerk emotional reaction is always to see the price go down when announced, but if in the long run they add more value than they lose through dilution then they can be a positive... as with all things in exploration you have to allow time to convert unknowns and uncertainties into definite facts, where there's certainly plenty of potential to do something useful with the money raised over the next year or two.
Given all the news and activity over the last few weeks has anybody been able to keep up with what our future capital structure may look like? We've had the amended Windfield acquisition proposal for new issue and warrants, various director's options and last night's placement to add on top of pre-outstanding options and warrants. I think that's roughly 1billion extra shares waiting in the wings to slowly add on top of the 4.7billion listed as previously in issue, or have I missed some?
@Max111 - Following yesterday's "discussion" about Fenix Resources you became quite agitated.
You accused me of "telling lies" and "posting BS" which, as previously stated, I viewed as somewhat desperately clutching at straws. Through selectively quoting comments out of context you grossly misrepresented what I had previously said and over exaggerated the certainty with which I present alternate possibilities for others to consider. I have no problem with someone holding a different opinion to my own, but it does not aid balanced discussion for anybody to so confidently state their opinions as if they are facts, all whilst belittling possibilities that do not support their own hopes.
I said that for the sake of others I would not further petty squabbling, so I will politely acknowledge your demand that I respond with quotes comparing UFO's future shipping costs to Fenix's current shipping to China. Though, as we cannot reliably establish either, this may emphasise my primary point of encouraging you to acknowledge that we are discussing future uncertainties where available data might not be indicative of UFO's future.
Nevertheless, yesterday you referenced bulk-shipping costs for a capesize vessel from Western Australia to Qingdao in China of $7.85/t (today $8.90/t). Since 2020 volatile capesize shipping prices to different Chinese ports have fluctuated up and down with almost $20/t between extremes. At a time when tensions with the east are growing and China's economy is struggling, we are discussing an off-take deal with Anglo American who primarily mine African and Brazilian iron ore - might any of this affect the location they want our Australian ore shipping to? Even if as seems likely, we do end up shipping to China, will that be to the port of Qingdao using a capesize vessel? At this point we can only speculate about the numbers that will collectively contribute to UFO's future AISC?
Fenix's overseas shipping costs aren't individually itemised but a maximum theoretical cost can be inferred from analysis of their results which I've converted to US$ for ease of comparison:
Annual revenue $177m from 1.34m tons or $132/t (today's CFR ore price is around $100/t)
Cost of revenue $123m or $92/t implying an extra $30/t in direct expenses not included within their stated FOB of $62/t
Other administrative expenses, financing costs and taxes $18m or $13/t
Total after tax profit of $36m or $27/t implying AISC of $105/t
I don't claim that my own expectations for UFO's future will be any more accurate than other people's, I just like to avoid seeing complex and nuanced situations reduced to single absolutes that mask any of their inherent uncertainty.
@Max 111
You accuse me of telling lies and posting BS which I view as somewhat desperately clutching at straws by selectively quoting comments out of context leading to a gross misrepresentation of what I have said, along with a deliberate over exaggeration of the certainty with which I present possibilities for others to consider... Perhaps unsurprising given the absolute conviction with which you express your own opinions about future uncertainties. I have no problem with you or anybody else holding a different opinion to my own, only how dismissive you can become towards any aspect of any opinion that doesn't fully support your own aspirations and beliefs.
If others here place any value on the narratives of inter-net bulletin boards they can look back in hindsight and judge for themselves the accuracy of our opinions over the last year or two: Opinions which probably have more in common than they do differences, I'm simply more cautious about distinguishing future uncertainties from known facts.
However, as nobody here wishes to read petty squabbling, for the sake of others I'll not continue to pursue this further.
@Max111 "HH wants UFO to focus on Elizabeth Hill"
When you were recently pushing Elizabeth Hill you accused me of not being a "silver bug" like yourself for questioning your proclamation that $20/oz would be the absolute low for silver. Yet even if you don't consider me a silver-bug, I don't deny that I personally consider our silver and PGM's more interesting than Hanc*ck and potentially more profitable over the long term. However, I've never suggested we should not be pursuing Hanc*ck as anything that generates us even a modest amount of income in the short to medium term so as to fund our long term exploration work is a good thing.
I'm invested here because I believe the long term potential of UFO outweighs the risks and short term volatility. It is just that a few here seem blinded by the considerable upside potential and won't even acknowledge that there are downside risks to any aspects of what we are attempting. It does not aid balanced discussion when such folk so confidently state their opinions as if they were facts, yet dismiss any other opinions that do not support their hopes. It is rarely difficult to find some evidence to support any argument, a different thing entirely to conclusively prove that there is no contradictory evidence out there which could support one or more alternate conclusions.
I always hope you are right in your confident predictions as, if so, I would profit handsomely from it. However, you have spent many, many, months making all manner of wildly optimistic claims about the near term future that have failed to come true... As early as the start of 2021 I was encouraging you to allow for possibly needing over two years to put the first of our iron ore in to production. Back then you were trashing my views and confidently claiming DSO was "quick and cheap" to mine and that we would capitalise on the then high prices: That before the end of 2021 UFO's share price would definitely be many multiples of where we are today through having begun to mine our iron ore.
I don't claim my own expectations or predictions will be any more reliable than other peoples, I just like to avoid seeing complex and nuanced situations reduced to single absolutes that mask any of their inherent uncertainty... As I've said before, on the rare occasions the prevailing narrative here gets too pessimistic and gloomy I am quite happy to take the opposite stance and point out UFO's considerable potential.
@smiller - Fenix's latest annual financial results that we were discussing here only a few days ago imply AISC of around US$105/t equivalent to US$43/t of additional costs above their quoted FOB costs of US$62/t. They have however consistently hedged part of their production which has worked well for them during times of falling ore prices as it means that they are always being paid more than open market prices.
What we choose to imply from the above about UFO's future total costs inclusive of all the usual stuff from allowances for costs to ship overseas to an end user, through administrative expenses and taxes to potential debt servicing costs (either paying back standard loans or royalties) is open to debate.
Rightly or wrongly I've always taken the view that our iron ore will likely generate us modest profits but that the average margin will not be so high as to always be sure of covering the significant volatility in the market. Whilst the upside potential is considerable, there is always the downside risk that there may be periods when things dip to just the wrong side of break-even.
--- as an aside, as I wasn't around yesterday - nice to see the move towards acquiring the land needed to build our access road, all good indications of the work going on behind the scenes, and should this ground actually include more ore, well that's a bonus.