Member Info for johnpwh

Baby
'I should clarify that I pay almost no attention to the daily movement of the SP'
Couldn't agree more, but I am concerned with the long term movement and its effects. I'm no chartist but it's a bit alarming. I did not think teh SP sink this low given that since the start of 2022, especially with the virtual complete absence of bad news. The SP performance has directly led to very disappointing dilution marring the otherwise welcome finance arrangements.
Just to make sure people understand me (and don't see me as enemy number 1), I have by most peoples standards a reasonable holding, which I have added to on drops, now averaging 11p. No plans to sell.
I have confidence in the longer term future for GGP, and now see it as a waiting game until late 2023/ early 2024.

Thankfully Culpepper I bought in nowhere near the 36 or 37 pence peak. I suspect that those that did will not be feeling happy to judge their situation by the 8.2p placing price as I see little chance on fundamentals that GGP SP will ever approach 36p again

Baby
I hold GGP with no plans to sell but do query that it is one of the most stable shares on AIM. SP 50% down in a year and 80% down in 2 years. Thank goodness it's so stable.

Utterly in agreement with Foz and Paul. We need a partner or a takeover for the resource.
As I've said before (and admittedly plucking figures from the ether with a blank look on my face) if a JV was proffered with a viable, well financed partner, in which ZNWD retained just 10% but was financially carried to production then I would think all my birthdays had come at once. Not that I probably have that many left, which is the problem as we stand today.

Foz
Totally agree with what you say. I am beginning to think that you and I are twins separated at birth.

Thanks Van

Ta Dip

....coming from GSK these days?

Sorry to sound like an echo (I've asked this before) but are we expecting an update about Havieron?
They seem very regular but not sure if they are in any way scheduled.

Cong
IHT is payable on the total value of the estate valued at the date of death (with exceptions, such as AIM shares, EIS/VCT? (cant say I know, much on the subject), Defined Contribution pension funds), CGT is not relevant. HOWEVER the base CGT acquisition cost, for future disposals either by beneficiaries or by the executor during the stewardship, is the value at the date of death. So CGT may be payable before any distributions by executors but only on movements in value during the stewardship. Please correct if I am wrong as I do not want to mislead.

meoryou
Looking on the gloomy side CGT doesn't apply when you pop your clogs, IHT does. That may deter from trading if like me you are getting on a bit. Plus worth remembering that AIM shares under certain circumstances (held a couple of years, a trading company and I think only quoted on one market) doesn't get counted in IHT.
That all may seem morbid but I think the Tories have changed the tax environment for investments so much that there are things for any 'serious' investors to contemplate. As an example, Hunt has cut, slashed, things you associate with conservatism. Take CGT AE, i can't see a Labour government re-introducing or increasing that can you? Which implies investing more for dividends than capital gains........ but now there is next to no dividend allowance which will possibly mean that dividends are also unattractive as more could well fall into higher rate tax!

AR was sitting next to Starmer all the way through. I thought Reeves came over well, far better than Hunt in fact who always seems surprised and smarmy. But then again I have recently gone from a lifelong one nation Tory to someone who feels that he will never be able to vote for that shambolic party ever again. I can't remember the Labour party destroying PI confidence due to moves on allowances and dividends the way they have.

Hi MrMath
Funny but I think you and I have chatted before on these boards!
I know about these tools but I'd rather do it myself. Like yourself I am a mathematician, maths degree and a masters in statistics. Then financial services work in actuarial and tax. Tax can be complex and keeps the grey cells shuffling around, and I'd rather do my own calcs. I maintain a spreadsheet with tab for each share, for each financial year. I don't trust anyone to know 30 day rules when more (or less) shares are re-bought than sold, transactions spanning financial year ends, maintaining the 'pool' correctly, adjust properly for right issues, takeovers partly in cash and partly in shares etc etc. The trading platform I use has a figure for aquisition costs and profit/loss, and apart from on first payment it never gets it right!

Tinker
Your post has made me think. With a 3k CGT AE limit from 2024/5, completion of CGT pages of your tax return will be necessary for any PI with total sales figure exceeding £12k (the rule is any sales turnover exceeding 4 x AE). So realistically most PIs, every year.
For the PI that is one big pain. I have one share in which I have 230 transactions in 6 years (roughly split 50;50 buys and sells). So if I had a total profit < £3k, and a small profit has been made on that share then how on earth would I prove I don't need to pay CGT!! My average is an insanely complex computation of buys and sells in every tax year.

meoryou
And Shell paid nothing as they are, in my opinion, better managed than BP. The BoD s primary role is the interest of shareholders. The only exception to that i can think of is that an Actuary was traditionally a Board member of non mutual Life and Pension companies and his/ her responsibility was to policyholders. Looney is not looking after shareholders in my opinion
I agree that that, for PIs, the assault on dividend taxes and in particular slashing CGT Annual Exemption is more worrying and could well take money out of the market in favour of deposits or Gilts. I am thinking of the latter myself if you assume that interest rates may peak next year and then decline which would give rise to capital gains in gilts - gilts are outside CGT.

I fail to see how you can extend windfall taxes to 2028 without defining what a windfall tax is. Without it the oil and gas companies will be subject to this even if the prices of oil and gas fall to beneath pre Ukranian invasion levels which, in 6 years, they are likely to do. I want Looney to grow a pair and resist this even if it means taking BPs tax residence elsewhere. Shell have taken steps to resist this financial rape. I am beginning to which I was invested there instead.

coin
I couldn't agree more. After the recent dilution at 8.2p Shaun Day stood up and bare faced said that there should be no more cash raises. A couple of months later that is shown to be a lie with another at 7.65p You can argue he didn't strictly say this wouldn't happen as it is not a cash raise but it was implied this sort of thing would not happen and everyone here believed him. There is no reason the earlier raise should not have factored in this fee payment. It leaves a very bad taste.
Why I am now sceptical is that many PIs talk about this being a 5 bagger, a 10 bagger, a 20 bagger. How exactly? The MC at 7.6p is about £400m. The peak SP was 37.5p, equating to a MB of 2 billion. The reserves are in the region of 5m ounces, but I am prepared to believe this will grow to, say, 10m ounces of which 7.5m ounces are recoverable. GGP share is 30% so assuming £700 an ounce net bottom line profits then that is £1.5 billion, but that will emerge over many, many years. Given the debt that also has to be repaid just what multiple of the current SP can be expected? Arguably the market it currently valuing this share pretty fairly.
My argument is full of assumptions, I accept that - it has to be because the value of this share has to be based on assumptions because of the many, many unknowns. Others will use different assumptions and come up with different answers, I appreciate that and would read them with interest.

I have become pessimistic about this now. I can see an upside, especially if PoG ticks up to over £2000, but not a huge one. At the present moment I am underwater, not hugely but enough. I would be happy at present to get back to being neutral, and could well decide to cut my exposure then.

Not exactly exciting is it. Mind you, look on the bright side. At least we don't have to worry about any problems caused by the latest clueless Chancellor of the Exchequer halving the Capital Gains annual exemption.

Polerchips
She is CEO. Ultimately the buck stops with her. You may have a crush on 'Emma', I don't