Member Info for LWHL

Just seen that sky news piece. Interesting. As it will be, to see if we get an RNS on Monday morning or not.

In this case, a private equity take over could work, because IMO there is capacity to make savings here, versus a few other stocks I hold, where the topic arises from time to time - but with stocks that are (again IMO) much leaner and thus less suited to a PE play potentially than S4.

As to what price could tempt enough shareholders to potentially convince the boss to relinquish his golden ticket? No idea, but IMO we are in play now.

And I think we will see more than one suitor in the coming weeks, and perhaps months.

Only a small disclosed short interest as of today, but the trading action next week might be fun regardless.

My buy order finally hit as well, albeit only a small amount.

See where we are in a few weeks. GLA.

Sorry to hear you say that. I think his rebuttal to that allegation was comprehensive and that has now been entirely discredited, has it not?

Otherwise, I would imagine he would be in even hotter water, given what he has put in the public domain on that topic, and using the most forthright language as well.

Anyway, I take your point about the length of time he has been talking about gold prices. I think it goes to prove that timing anything market or commodity-related is basically impossible. But the premise was and still is sound, IMO.

FWIW, I have not been following his advice on many of my own trades since I first came across him. But that is with trading in mind, rather than LTH strategy.

And I certainly took profits too soon on a few of my miners, because I wanted to build a decent sized war chest for the next opportunity.

I hear that first sentence of yours all the time, Trouts.

There would be plenty of money to invest in the areas that the overwhelming majority care about and support if our 'leaders' allocated our money in line with our wishes.

But they never do. Foreign aid. Endless wars. A de facto open door immigration policy (these days, both legal and illegal, where until recently, it was only the illegal component that was unwelcome).

Net zero.

I would support returning all of our rivers and lakes to a healthy state. Increasing the green belt. Increasing farmland to improve our food security.

All of which could probably be achieved for the same cost as that dubious 'carbon capture' scheme that the politicians seem to idolise.

We can only speculate why that might be.

As someone who also has experience of founding small and medium sized businesses, I completely agree with you on that particular point though. Although I would suggest it has got harder and harder over the past 20 years for all but the big corporates. So not a recent thing.

Small operations do not have the funds to provide NED posts or juicy consultancy fees to current or ex-politicians. Probably no link there though, lol.

I am delighted to hear the younger generation feel that way. I hope they do. Because they would be right to fear such an outcome.

Anyone who thinks those in power would not be seduced by the chance to have control over a social credit system, is quite frankly deluded. No 'IMO' for this. It simply is obvious and entirely within human nature.

Might be good for the gold black market. Whatever they do or try to do, workarounds are always found.

Yeah. I have heard those theories too, and I would not reject them out of hand.

Not least because history shows that currencies always eventually go the same way. So why would the current ones be any different? Especially as they are not even backed by anything anymore. The 1970's were not only a bad time for architecture but also for money!

But they are not going to call them CBDC's anymore. A cynic might deem the 'anti' CBDC movement within the political establishment as a smoke and mirrors play.

The masses will lap them up though, IMO. Hey ho.

The government has no business getting involved in growing the economy.

Just like the government has no money - it is all our money, or our credit, when they borrow/print etc.

If they wanted to play a role in contributing to fixing some of the mess that they and their friends that sit opposite them in the Commons have created over the past 20-odd years, then they would need to radically cut public spending and regulation on the private sector.

But they have their plans and it does not involve any of that. Quite the opposite. It has been a pretty seamless handover of the baton from the last lot, it must be said.

Anyway, I am still backing the boss here to navigate the next attack by the morality police, but I have reduced my position, at around a 5% loss on those ones.

I think I am going to be able to pick them up a fair bit cheaper in the months ahead.

But if this pull back is temporary, and we kick on to new year highs and hopefully a good deal more in the medium term, then the profit on those I have left in play will more than offset said 5% crystallised loss. GLA.

Indeed. His decision to sell around half of our gold reserves should have been investigated IMO.

Even after all this time, that decision still stinks.

Unless one takes the view he was/is merely stupid, in which case the premise for listening to anything that he has to say, on any topic, is flawed.

So, in either scenario, he should have zero airtime.

True. Well, I can still see his point about it having no value beyond a greater fool play, but I am pretty sure he said it would have gone to zero before now.

And I certainly remember him imploring people to sell their bitcoin when it was in the thousands, and then tens of thousands.

And his view of course remains unchanged today.

An example of why it is unwise to take a financial decision off the back of what someone says!

I think I have seen him as a guest on a YT show.

Is he fundamentally different?

PS and RR have been proven right in the time I have been aware of them.

See PS in his speech to the mortgage bankers in 2006, through the lens of today.

Have either PS or RR been discredited?

Nothing wrong with making a call. In fact, it shows a willingness to participate in the right spirit, IMO. The opposite of those who always seem to buy the bottoms and sell the tops :)

I was not calling you out, mate, but I was retorting to PI, who was so quick to point the finger of criticism at me, that he misplaced who said what.

I see/saw low 400's, hence my deciding to stay put, but so far you have been proved correct with your decision. Equally, I am happy to retain my book mark and might add to it if I see a technical window. Not a priority right now though.

And as you know, I wish everyone success in their efforts. We are not competing with each other. And I enjoy sharing a wide range of ideas and opinions here. Occasionally I get annoyed with what I deem a snippy or passive aggressive comment, but we are all human, after all. GLA.

Rick Rule IMO is also an excellent source of knowledge and well worth one's attention.

Not looking to ramp it, but have a look at the Barrick long term chart, for those who might be interested and unfamiliar.

I am hoping it might resemble the FRES chart before too long. If it comes to pass, I will polish my halo. If it does not...this post will self destruct :)

LT: I have been pondering exactly the same thing as you seem to have.

But with fib retraces in mind, as/when/if history repeats itself in terms of such SP movement. The 61.8 in particular, since you asked, lol.

From which exact point in time...the answer to that question would be worth a trillion or more :)

I will have to take your word for that, because I have no idea what others think of UK investors.

I do think that a lot of us Brits, myself included, and with great regret for this sentiment, have a deeply negative view of our country right now.

I think it is for good reasons, and it is not just since Labour took power.

In my case, a frustration that our establishment has taken us down a path that has undone generations of great achievement. By accident or design, if the result is the same, does it really matter?

But I also think many of us believe the ship can be turned around with some fairly significant changes.

Difficult, and certainly not without consequences, but the alternative (maintaining the current status quo) is almost certainly a ticket to a failed state dictatorship and economic collapse.

On a par with a few other countries that claim to be democracies but that we in the West refute and scorn.

In part, this increases the logic of trading, versus diamond hands.

As to your comment about great British businesses being sold on the cheap, well, to a point perhaps, but the blame for this rests with said UK government interference, and in many cases, historic pension liabilities that many other nations do not have hanging over their listed entities, for example.

Nowt but a baby. Some of us made our maiden purchases here when the SP was in the 18's :)

You should have phrased it like that in the first place. A far more reasonable, nuanced and thoughtful post.

Nobody has blamed immigration alone for the decline of the West. Equally, we have never taken the approach that Singapore did, even back to the early post war years, where it all started to unravel.

More like Yugoslavia (worse in my view). Time will tell if we see a different outcome this time.

Anyway, I will not de-rail this board again on this topic. GLA.

Interest rate cuts tend to lead to currency depreciation. Especially if done when inflation is above the long-standing mandate of 2% average.

But the central banks seem to have dropped the 'average' component of this mandate (I wonder why? Lol.)

Even so, this has no impact on, and therefore still tends, to favour the PM's.

As to the other poster suggesting this is a well run operation...IMO it has a very chequered history, but with spot prices as they are, they do not need to be like some of the better-managed miners (Barrick, IMO and since you asked).

IMO, calculating fair value is difficult for any business, but especially miners.

Because the geopolitical risks tend to be more pronounced than they are for most other outfits, by the very nature of having immobile assets.

The most recent update makes the fundamentals look reasonable again, IMO.

I agree that £20 would, on this basis, no longer be cheap though. But if they make savings, and/or the spot prices of the metals continue to rise, then £20 could look cheap here.

Well that made me chuckle. Have a look back and you will see that it was another poster, not me, that made that call.

Apology accepted :)