Member Info for JTS13

Just because a couple of people on here have already raised the point of 'trading', may I just add that the recent rise was a technical one, and therefore natural for traders to enter/exit. If you open any chart and view it on a 4hr timescale, add in MACD & RSI indicators and you'll note that everything turned positive (i.e. buy) during the afternoon of 22nd July. This 'buy signal' was made more obvious by the rebound off the low (created on 6th May, which in of itself was the 76% fib retracement of the rise from 3rd April).
Subsequently, continuing with the 4HR chart, the RSI is suggesting a slight cool-off period following this recent rise, which indicates that a further rise should be anticipated.
Now, that's only looking at a single chart. Buy/entry points should also look at other factors, but my point here is that technicals are not rocket science. Traders who make 10% a pop at 4 or 5 times leverage (i.e. 40-50% a pop) on trades like what we've just seen are killing it (assuming thatt they're right the majority of the time).

Personally, I am not trading this stock. However, I did not the indicator and added to my holding at 11.7p the other day. We all have different ways of investing

You raise the question more concisely than me @Northman. As NGNLNV has pointed out, $2mill is accounted for already. But remainder is still a big sum.

Hope we'll get some clarity during the investor call

@OthodeLagery, thanks for the response and good post.

With regards to your point on Pasofino, I acknowledge what you’re saying, although I personally don’t view it addresses my concerns. (1) Timeliness of communication, and (2) shareholder value. Ironically, you indirectly emphasise the cause for concern because the raise by Pasofino was pre-agreement, and therefore further shows how this vehicle was all planned. i.e. my point here is that Pasofino could of issued equity to HUM directly rather than ARX. The Board purposefully chose private gain. Of course I am delighted that HUM has no immediate expense at Dugbe, but I disapprove of the way it’s been communicated.
What I think we can gain from Pasofino is an indication of value attributable towards Dugbe. The final agreement signed on 9th July (which is when I personally think HUM shareholders should have been notified, not today) resulted in ~13million GBP increase in Pasofino market capitalisation (SP peak @ 0.40CAD – former SP @ 0.23 to calc’ %age rise * MC * currency conversion). We would of course like to see any rises there reflected in HUM SP here, less risk for dilution.

Thanks for pointing out the $2mill being post. I’d missed that.

The airstrip is interesting isn’t it? It would be good to learn more about it. i.e. specific purpose, capacity, costs, etc. Looking at AISC, I think Q2 AISC was impressive considering the previous notifications and lowered production. However, the fact that HUM expects AISC to increase during H2, when production rates resume normalised rates, that’s indicating that we are building something big which is being factored into production cost. Now, surely the worst of Covid inventory stocking and process adusting is finished. So, the airstrip?? If so, shouldn’t we know more about it?

Re: Gold inventories, unfortunately I would direct you back to do a comparison of Q1-Q2 inventories and you’ll note that inventories are significantly down by 7,000ozs, not up. Whilst I note we still have $8m in inventories, my question is about what happened to the other $11m.

Anyway, some great stuff in here. Yes. But my target for HUM is a pound, and I view RNS’s like this as preventing that hope from actualising. It is waaay too much info for a single RNS. Much is not timely. And we are clearly missing info on some pretty significant projects onsite.

Wouldn’t it of been much better to spread out these RNSs and then build the Q2 update around the sentence of “· Yanfolila predicted to generate in excess of US$60 million of EBITDA in H2 2020 (US$120m annualised) at current gold prices”?? That’s a brilliant read. Why not shout it out, rather than burry it in a 2,500 word RNS?

I'm unimpressed by this RNS. People were questioning the ARX deal at the time but I wanted to give mgt benefit of the doubt. Now we learn that ARX entered into a sale transaction 5 days after it was formed and we only learn about it today, 2 months after the fact! That is hardly timely communications. Clearly conversations had been ongoing prior to ARX formation and it was all a way for maximising returns for the few at expense of the broader shareholder community. And Parofino Gold! Why? It's a nobody company

Haven't gone through and done the math yet, but at face value, the numbers don't seem to add up. Cash down by 2 mill, after receipt of 2 mill from ARX. Debt down by 8 mill. So essentially 4mill out of earnings went to play down debt. Given that gold inventory is down by 7,000 ounces (~12mill) what happened to the rest of it? Did we just make a loss this quarter?

As I said, need to sit down and read it through in more detail, but at face value, I'm really disappointed. Hope a morning coffee will wake me up and I'll find that I've been reading this all wrong

Firstly, why should HUM rush? Secondly, why don't you make historical comparisons prior to assertions? i.e. update would be expected for this week, so what's the panic. Thirdly, given that HUM's business context is considerably more complex than ever previously (by means of covid, gold environment, not to mention all of the other developments we've had announcements on etc) how one can possibly think that this would making writing the update easier and faster is beyond me.
It's a gold mine. It's supposed to be boring! Walk away and come back in 6 months, then complain if this hasn't risen by 50%

"The most effective way to reduce the price of vanadium battery is to reduce the production cost of vanadium electrolyte and stack"
This is obviously a point that BMN will be aware of. 'IF' there is a price ceiling, at which point VFBs are of questionable price competitiveness, getting in on the tech action (through M&A activity as per their strategy) allows them to afford a guaranteed V price, with growth coming from the VFB sector (that is, upon ramp up to max' capacity at the mining level).
Essentially, the business model will inherently incorporate multiple levels of hedging.
It may take time for BMN value to materialise. As posted on here previously, I think a primary limitation is how the company is categorised as a miner. IES performance of late has shown that forward PE for emerging tech run at significant multiples over that of mining.
I wonder what way capital growth will happen. Will it be because value is recognised in BMN strategy? Or will it be via a sub-play like IES exploding, and then investors coming into BMN as an indirect means of gain into those plays?

This board has some of the most informed posters I've seen on LSE. I don't read here much at all, but it's great to see. Unsure if has been discussed already, but I do wonder what effect increasing China tensions will have on V demand and what that may mean for BMN?

Not sure of the significance this would have on UKW either way? Perhaps more question marks on nuclear would benefit other ESGs? Not a massive fan of handing over major infrastructure projects to other countries ownership regardless of who they are to be honest.

Re: UKW RNS yesterday. Was impressed by the minimal impact COVID has had on performance. Had anticipated up to 5p hit to NAV (similar as TRIG) but perhaps slightly less due to not having too many projects on in development phase right now.

Came very close to downsizing my holding here, but will continue to hold. NAV not impacted, stable dividend reassured, and even a chance of some further capital growth should wider market take a hit from economic downturn and investors start looking for safer assets

Hm, think I'm expecting slightly lower POG that others on here. Can't remember the terms, but has been referred to in past updates that (a) we don't trade at spot, but slightly below it cause of the particular channels used, and (b) HUM was hedged with a floor at considerably lower gold price.
(B) was a brilliant move, because the floor provided just that, a floor. Yet there is also an 'x' % that is to be discounted on POG over the floor. I don't think they ever stated what that is, but even if it were 1 or 2%, that still adds up.
Given that average POG was in the region of ~1700$ for the period, I'd be happy with anywhere north of $1600.

I like to think the worst and then be pleasantly surprised, rather than the other way around.

PS: For me, I'm not too interested in earnings or that from Q2. Main thing is stability. Think wider investor community wants to know HUM is reliable, no more big mishaps, and then they can start doing the math based upon todays POG. That's what will start moving this north

Haha, sure most of us have done that before, only to notice AFTER a rise in SP.
Picked up a couple extra Gs this morning also. Brings the average down slightly

I had been wondering about that too, although thought that if this were the case that such IIs would of sold down a few months ago rather than now. H1 2020 trading update was fairly solid really (given context of price drop since beginning of year). If Divis were of concern, I'd of expected waiting until the Interims to get an update on dividend policy, as a restarting of dividends could ironically make this an investors dream.
Oh well...

Intrigued as to why there've been 3 IIs reduce their holdings here in the past week... Anyone know of anything happening? Some Covid rise or upcoming political event in one of the countries we operate or something which I'm missing?
Assuming copper maintains it's current price and the next update shows business as per usual (besides labour reductions onsite that aren't supposed to make significant difference to our production) I'd of thought this would start making decent headway toward ~250p again.
Certainly on the technical side a close north of 170p is important as there's little resistence between here and 2 pounds... but strange it's taking so long to break

Cheers Goldenbull, almost there.
To be fair, I had brought my average down to high 30's in late 2017 in the run up to the mine opening. But then got really hacked off after the 'great flood' and sold those ones off in the 20's.
So yeh, am looking for a pound to make this all worth while. Otherwise would of been better putting it all in an ESG and just taking stable dividends lol

@Everyonesfool: I've not looked into this personally, though would assume its' largely a result of ambiguity about JP Morgan and the other bullion banks. They pretty much control direction of gold and normal people can't really see what they're doing. Today and tomorrow have potential to significantly influence future price direction... Looking at price action today, clearly most people have made a decision and now the price is waiting until the end of the Aug contract to know what JPM have done. As you say,it's "now waiting to see"

GLA

Bought HUM waaay too early. Watched it go south for years
Need 47p to break even here. Ironically broader portfolio is fine, the safe gold mine (that was the idea) has been one of the worst performers

Agreed
Obviously higher is better. Makes the multi-year wait year a bit more worth while. Still need another 6p just to break even

@GoldenBull, Dec gold futures peaked at $2000.3s this morning if that helps ;)

I believe Goldman issued a 3 month forecast of $2300 today... Within the Canaccord research piece, I don't believe that it reflects on valuation potential with regards to such a rise. Maybe we don't achieve all-time highs, but I'm certainly hoping for a pound personally. Further rises will be dependent upon gold price maintaining >1600$ (in my view) and development updates from other assets. Quite probable, but not guaranteed.

Just a guess, which was allured to by many analysts over the weekend, but when near futures trade higher, spot price rises to meet it (note earlier sentence about futures hitting $2000 already). Whereas when futures are lower, spot price tends to drop down to it. Many believe this to be primarily manipulated by JP Morgan, as well as a few other bullion banks who hold huge shorts in gold. The Aug Future (closing this week) is a big deal cause apparently many of the shorters might not have sufficient physical gold to cover their shorts. As referenced over the weekend, this may either result in a squeeze and jump in gold, or potentially a temporary reversal.
Currently Aug Futures are trailing spot by 6$s. Let's see what happens

PS: I still stand by comment this morning that "Pullback/consolidation was expected, but this is vicious". I've never seen a 400 point drop in silver before happen so fast. A lot of people will have lost a lot of money in that, and I refuse to glorify in other peoples' misfortune.

@Punter: Are you purposefully misreading what I write? Or do you genuinely believe that global pandemics happen every couple of months?

@Punter: Following a quick scan of the hourly chart, I have not seen a 400 point move in silver since 2011. Feel free to specify one of the 'numerous' times recently where this actually has happened. Similarly, gold very rarely swings 75 points negative in just a couple of hours. Unless we are to outbreak of a global pandemic as a normal occurrence? ... The Shanghai Gold Exchange has confirmed this and just announced that it may implement control measures following volatility. Indexes don't introduce new policies for occurrences that happen regularly. New policies are introduced to prevent unusual events, such as what happened this morning

FYI: Just to spell out what I wrote for those who struggle to interpret properly: This is a bullish statement!!!

Similarly, other news which got sidelined this morning as a result of the China drop is: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-28/u-s-mint-has-reduced-silver-gold-coin-supplies-to-purchasers?sref=I5jUJbND

@Lesser: Much is in interpretation. I typically view anyone who holds a play as less than 6 months as a trader. So that would be most people on AIM.

That's besides the point though. Perhaps it's just some people on here are new to investing? A common mistake for fairly new investors (usually prior to experiencing a crash) is to focus on company fundamentals ONLY. This is important absolutely, and I strongly encourage people to read "The Intelligent Investor, by Benjamin Graham" as it's easily one of the most informative books which could be read on investment - and also an easy read. However, it's a much harder skill to observe what's happening in the macro sphere and understand how that impacts the core aspects of a business. i.e. if one is invested in a gold mine, one should monitor not only gold price, but the key factors that impact gold price (such as buying patterns in China, stimulus packages, US-China relations etc). Whilst things are in a bull market, it can still be ok to be negligent. But the moment a market sours, that could easily result in crippling losses. As an example, during the oil crash in 2015, I held a play which were increasing production by 400% YOY, and the stock plummeted 80%... Obviously I'm not saying the market is turning. I'm saying that inexperienced people can misinterpret signals and sell out. A quick look at this mornings' trades will tell you that this is true (note the over representation of 'red' and their small value).
Claiming that such factors have "very little effect on us overall" is a guaranteed way to lose money in the long term, regardless of short term performance here in HUM over the next year or so.

@Hussain: Understandably noted. FYI: 'Leverage' basically allows one to increase their trading capacity by a multiplier factor of 'X'. So, for example, I want to buy 1000 pounds worth of HUM, but I don't have 1000 pounds. I can use a leverage of 4X and spend 250 pounds to buy 1000 pounds worth. This is what a lot of people use to maximise gains in stocks that they perceive to rise/fall in a fairly short time period.
The standard leverage for silver is 10X, and gold is 20X. So, for every 1% increase in decrease in silver for example, you would gain or lose 10% in real terms.
Putting that into the context of what I said this morning: Imagine that you had 1000 grand in gold but were not closely monitoring price. You flick on to here and noticed the comment I posted. What do you do? You check the news and learn what's happened and modify your position. You could of just saved yourself thousands of pounds... IF you were in such a position (as I'm sure several other HUM investors are), wouldn't you want someone to raise such a question?

@Lesser&Hussain: It's pretty simple really. For example, if you were a trader using standard leveraging and bought at the peak this morning. You'd of seen about a 145% swing in silver & 70% in gold respectively... If those aren't big moves to you then I don't know what is!
I don't believe such a rapid drop has happened since 2011. What's the point in having a board if people can't even raise once in a decade observations. If you want to be critical, I suggest you also lambaste my forecast over the weekend about HUM crossing north into new trading range. Perhaps my opinion about HUM being undervalued if gold were to drop to 1600 is also to be criticised? No?

@ngnlnv: China gold consumption dropping by 38.3% YOY is a big deal. I think that this may be the story of today and being so close to end of month, gold price is likely to fluctuate significantly over the next 72 hours. As said earlier, HUM gaining a close above 40.5p is significant and needs to be maintained to support next leg north.
Pull-back in gold is needed in order to cool down the technicals. What the average PI here absolutely should not want is significant volatility as that will see people not only de-risk in the commodity, but in related plays (i.e. sell HUM).

I say the 'average PI' because the average PI is not really an investor. Average PI's scare easy, hence why around 70% of people lose money in stocks.

Naturally, I anticipate (as mentioned over the weekend) a consolidation and am hoping for this to be over 1900$s. LT gold price looks positive and I'm LT confident in HUM at >1600$s

Anybody watching gold/silver? MASSIVE decline this morning
Pullback/consolidation was expected, but this is vicious