Member Info for Jerryspaniel

I would like to join in the group kicking this idiot in the nuts.

There is so much transparent nonsense from him that fortunately we can see it (and smell it) a mile off.

For the novice investors out there please trust a few and disregard the many.

A newbie should never be trusted till they earn it.

Jiffy I have no idea what point nine was trying to make about the puts. If he writes clearly and concisely I might be able to respond. I don’t think it was dore bars vs puts. At least I hope not.

You can fiddle AISC and you can fiddle profit, but you cant fiddle cash flow.......from Jim Slater....

LvRoche, its not easy to distill the story into a 15min presentation and then leave room for q&a. I think Shaun knocked it out of the park, though its debatable whether anyone who didnt know about GGP could have taken it all in. Hopefully it will encourage them to do some research.

Shaun seemed to say that the WDD drilling results will get their own announcement. If I am correct in my understanding, it wont be because the results were so awful he just wanted to make everyone notice that.

I have been excited by WDD since the last lot of drilling results there. I am now even more excited.

My guess is that Telfer has a lot more than ten years production left.

I know its off topic, but some of us on here are investors in the above. The FM Ned Naylor Leyland has just finished a webinar. Very bullish on PMs and where we are in the cycle and feels there is way more to come as very little participation from main street in this bull market. Lots of graphs to explain his logic. Probably most bullish on silver miners from here but thats due to silvers high beta and that the miners genrally are still very cheap to the metal.

Its not much of a diversifier but then I am not a fan of diversification.

Ned has owned GGP in the past but I dont think he does now. Biggest position is Discovery silver which bought a mine from Newmont and has done about 3X since then.

Here is my take.

Trackers are often ETFs and usually slavishly follow the index tracking with a perfect replication of the index they track. Some have a bit of leeway (like GDXJ, if you read their small print). Hence they ought to be buyers/sellers only on the day that changes to the composition of the index are made. They tend to be judged on how low their fees are and what their tracking error is to the underlying index. They buy stock in the correct proportions when investors buy the fund and sell when investors exit the fund. If they dont own the correct proportions their tracking error blows out and that isnt good, regardless of whether they beat the index or not.

Funds often are benchmarked to an index or a subset of an index. This pretty much describes their mandate so the investor knows what they are trying to do. They dont slavishly track the index but its more of a case of trying to outperform that index. So they will often not have the correct weighting of shares and may not even own the shares at all. Equally they may own shares that arent even in the 'index'. They are judged pretty much solely on whether they can outperform their benchmark and their costs are often higher than a fund that passively tracks the index.

My guess is that there are some Aussie funds that are passive trackers of ASX200/300, and there are others that just have the ASX200 as a benchmark.

Howard no problem. I just think they would be better buying something they consume rather than something they produce. I did wonder whether they might have announced a share buy back when the price fell to £2.30, but unless they had already had authorisation for that, it may have got a bit messy as they will need the money next year. But it would have stuck one to the shorts which would have been fun to watch.

Violin, no they dont but they do have some OTM puts as a hedge, but these are with banks and not end users/refiners.

Howard its quite bizarre that you think that holding some gold is a diversifier! Given what we have in the ground I would suggest its quite the opposite.

Not much point in running a sensible hedging programme and holding gold once its refined.

If Shaun wanted to diversify he might want to buy a years supply of electricity and diesel with some of the cash.

If the gold price were to fall, GGP would be quite rightly pilloried for holding gold as well as mining it, and hedging it. IMO.

Yes Spades. If that wasnt what I said, it was what I meant!

JB, I am pretty sure that the shares that NM held that were subject to ROFR were sold to Aussie instos in the placing a few months back. The shares that they still hold are subject to the call option deed as referred to in the deal last September. It would appear that you think its the other way around but I dont think that is correct.

Greg Orrell in a recent MoM interview was dead against reducing the cut off grade to increase reserves/resources. He didnt really expand on this enough to fully understand his point, but i think it was to be against knee jerk reactions to short term price moves just to inflate the reserves and NPV, when a reversal of that price move would require an offsetting downgrade.

I presume he wouldnt be against any conservative move up in gold price assumptions assuming that it was still heavily discounted to the spot price.

Poor old IP. He has been attacked by some very small blood vessels....

Taverham, not really. They own about 10% but its optioned to Wyloo. So in reality, they are out.

Stanley Tucci. They have the same amount of hair....

I think it was a bit more than that. Maybe A$15-20m. But either way its a cracking bit of hedging by Shaun - without the benefit of hindsight.

The danger of trading from the short side, is that as you lose money, your position size increases. Yikes!

The dangers of AI. It calls this Index Arbitrage. It most certainly isnt index Arbitrage. I used to trade IA when I had a career. Its something completely different.

AI is often right and its a great tool, but in this case its just plain wrong.

I would call it front running the passives, stagging the index changes, and possibly anticipatory arbitrage, though I have never heard of this term before.

Do I need to move my sell order up from 164 to 173?