Member Info for Malvolio

"...biggest Space fund on earth". That's only true, your majesty, if you apply a very literal meaning to the word fund. As well as Seraphim I'm in a Van Eck space tracker, JEDG, which as of yesterday was 2.8 billion USD in size. (JEDG is sterling, JEDI is USD but they're both the same thing.)

Been here since London & Stamford days. Never had reason to sell.

The scenario posed by you and Starbright require an increased, or at least hopes of an increased, NAV, within a fairly short timescale. Where does this come from? We have no idea. And we know that demand for the C shares is limited at present - otherwise they would have raised nearer the hoped-for £350 million. This whole C shares business has a "too clever by half" feel about it.

Thanks for the reply. Forensic.

Forensic, a genuine question. How do you square your enthusiasm for the offer with the absence of some rather vital numbers? We don't know how many C shares will be issued or how much cash will be raised. It follows that unlike a rights issue, we have no idea how much we need to invest to avoid dilution, or raise our stake.

The invasion of Ukraine has also been a major catalyst in a structural shift in the gold price. Central banks moved to seize Russian reserves held in Western systems, which ‘jolted’ the market, while at the same time, Russia and several Eastern central banks – including China - accelerated their shift away from dollar-centric assets and into gold.

Rees said these actions were responsible for ‘lighting the fuse for the current bull market’.

The disconnect became ‘impossible to ignore’ and private capital followed into gold, notably exchange traded funds (ETFs), that helped propel the gold price further and moving the rally from ‘defensive’ to ‘increasingly crowded’.

Spiller went further, stating that gold might be ‘a classic bubble, where a good fundamental narrative gets taken too far by speculative fever’.

For that reason, he is focusing on two-year inflation-linked gilts, which have ‘held value despite sharp increases to short-term interest rate expectations’.

He increased his inflation-linked bond allocation from 43% to 45% in January, up from 38% a year ago and ‘the position has been slowly built up’.

‘Rising geopolitical risks only reinforce that backdrop,’ he said.

‘Recent price action has turned more constructive, suggesting a short‑term base may be forming. The world has undeniably changed since the current gold bull market began, with powerful structural forces arguing for a higher long‑term price.’

Rees said that bull markets are ‘rarely linear’ and investors should not be surprised by periods of ‘consolidation of correction’, such as the current one.

Peter Spiller, manager of the defensive Capital Gearing (CGT) trust, is less optimistic about the gold price, and sold his entire holding – which stood at 1% of the £805m portfolio at the start of the year – as the price hit $5,150 an ounce in January.

He said the reaction of gold to the Iran war has ‘been quite disappointing’ given its current shift to become a ‘risk-on asset’.

Although he said that ‘some of this may have been a general scramble for liquidity in difficult times’, it does call into question ‘the motive for holding gold’.

‘It is fair to say that gold now trades in response to technical analysis rather than any fundamental judgement,’ he said.

‘We do not know what the future price of gold will be any more than we know what the future price of Bitcoin will be. But it is clear that it is not a secure haven in times of trouble.’

It is not just retail investors who have been rushing to exit their gold holdings, central banks have been offloading the precious metal too.

Spiller said there are rumours that the central bank of Poland has been selling gold to pay for increased defence spending.

‘Certainly, in Italy, the treasury has proposed taking over some or all of the gold reserves from the central bank, presumably with the idea of cashing in on the huge gains,’ he said.

He said it was ‘curious’ that central banks should choose to hold such a large amount of an asset which is ‘not easily realisable in an emergency’ and this ‘could inhibit further purchases’.

Unreliable asset

The recent sell-off in gold has underlined an ‘increasingly clear trend’ in the growing unreliability of traditional safe-havens’ in times of market stress, according to Rees.

This trend has extended beyond gold and into bonds, where yields – which move inversely to price - have risen on renewed inflation concerns, meaning both bonds and gold have fallen in line with equities.

‘The breakdown in cross‑asset correlations and the diminishing consistency of traditional defensive assets is something we have been acutely aware of for some time,‘ said Rees.

‘It has reinforced our belief that relying solely on conventional safe havens is no longer sufficient, which is why we make use of unconventional derivative protection within the portfolio.’

He said those positions proved critical in 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine, and enabled positive returns in a year when most assets fell, and are similarly important today during the Iran crisis.

From today's citywire.com:

Where to hide when gold becomes an unreliable safe-haven

By Michelle McGagh

A rush to liquidity as war broke out in the Middle East toppled the gold price, proving that investors need more than traditional safe-havens to weather a modern-day crisis.

Gold has been a traditional safe-haven in times of war but the price of the precious metal took an unusual downturn as conflict escalated in the Gulf, shedding 14% in March as Iran and the US-Israel traded blows.

The security of the real asset has been overshadowed by a surge in government bond yields and expectations for higher interest rates as the spike in the oil price caused by the Strait of Hormuz closure puts upward pressure on inflation. With higher yields being offered on cash and government bonds, non-yielding gold isn’t looking like such a strong bet for investors’ money.

On top of this, the dollar surged 2.5% in March, making dollar-denominated gold much more expensive for buyers outside of the US.

After a stellar run in 2025, when gold gained 65%, and a further 11% gain in January alone that took the metal to an all-time high of $5,589 an ounce on 28 January, some had already been waiting for a correction.

Ian Rees, co-manager of wealth preservation trust Ruffer (RICA) said gold’s pull-back in March look ‘counter-intuitive’ given its track record as a place of refuge for investors during geopolitical risk events.

He said the precious metal can often fall in ‘the eye of the storm’ during sell-offs as ‘investors prioritise liquidity and sell assets that have performed well’.

‘That pattern may have been exaggerated on this occasion, with many allocators sitting on substantial gains, making gold a natural source of funding precisely at the moment stress peaked,’ he said.

‘We have also seen selling of bullion by some central banks seeking to support their economies during the current turmoil.’

Rees has sold down his own position in gold, reducing it from 10% of his £908m portfolio at its peak in 2025 – split between gold mining equities and silver and platinum bullion – to just 3% today focused solely on gold mining equities.

Gold miners remain his preferred play on gold as ‘elevated margins and strong balance sheets mean miners can continue to drive earnings growth even if bullion prices stabilise or soften’.

Structural shift

There remains a structural shift in the gold price that allows Rees to retain his ‘constructive view’. He sees it as a natural beneficiary of currency debasement ‘and a world that is structurally more inflation-prone’.

‘Rising geopolitical risks only reinforce that backdrop,’ he said.

TMT: Thanks for the reply.

TMT, I'm intrigued by your £40 target. Is that an arbitrary figure or do you have a rationale for it? Genuinely curious.

From their website:

"We were founded by a small group of traders and technologists in a tiny New York office. Today, we have more than 3000 employees across five global offices. We trade a broad range of asset classes on more than 200 venues in 45 countries. We innovate in tech, from functional programming to machine learning to programmable hardware. And while our proprietary trading business thrives, we put our expertise and experience to work for our clients."

Thanks for that link, AcciesLad - very helpful and informative.

This has been a cracker of a share for me. Here's hoping the escalator will continue its stately ascent in 2026 and beyond.

Don't get your hopes up too much.

First, the speculation is that Reeves is considering scrapping it a year ahead of schedule - 2029 instead of 2030.

Then it's suggested she could replace it with something else.

This from Politico:

Badenoch might (sort of) actually get what she wants on the oil and gas windfall tax, as the FT reports Reeves is considering scrapping it sooner than expected. George Parker and colleagues suggest she could use the budget to ax the levy in March 2029, having previously extended it to March 2030. But they hear she’s seeking evidence the move would boost investment (and the OBR’s forecasts), while also considering replacing the levy with a permanent new tax mechanism.

Taking questions from media at Diggers & Dealers on Tuesday about whether ASIC had spoken to the Greatland, Mr Day said: “We weren’t contacted to comment on that. If we had been, we would have said no.”

An ASIC spokeswoman declined to comment when asked by The West Australian there had been any kind of engagement with Greatland.

Asked more about the downgrade and the market’s reaction, Mr Day kept things brief.

“I respect the market, but what we what we focused on was just making sure that we gave a clear update, and we’re really confident that we can achieve that update.”

Greatland shares are yet to recover from the July 29 bloodbath — they traded at $5.21 each by 12.50pm.

The formerly London-based company, which has a market capitalisation of about $3.5b, bought its flagship Telfer mine and the neighbouring Havieron project for up to $US475m from Newmont Corporation in September.

From the West Australian:

Greatland on ASX radar after downgrade that erased smiles

The share market operator has ordered Greatland Resources to explain why output forecasts were slashed not long after its ASX debut, causing $1 billion of shareholder value to evaporate in one day.

3 min. readView original

The share market operator has ordered Greatland Resources to explain why output forecasts were slashed not long after its ASX debut, causing $1 billion of shareholder value to evaporate in one day.

The gold miner’s share price had been riding as high as $7.80 following a stellar start to life as an Australian Securities Exchange-listed company at the end of June. This followed an initial public offering at $6.60.

But those gains would be obliterated when Greatland downgraded production guidance from its Telfer mine in WA’s north for the 2026 financial year. Its stock plummeted 24 per cent on July 29 to finish the day’s trade at $5.24.

Greatland had already faced accusations Australia’s corporate cop was on its back about the downgrade, an accusation which the company has so far rejected, when on Friday the ASX published a ‘please explain’ letter.

Greatland had a production target for financial year 2026 of between 300,000 ounces and 340,000oz of gold in its prospectus to list on the ASX, which was cut to between 260,000oz and 310,000oz on July 29.

A higher all-in sustaining cost forecast was also flagged July 29 — from a range of $2,400/oz and $2,600/oz to $2,400/oz and $2,800/oz.

The ASX grilled Greatland over whether anyone knew the surprise downgrade was coming at the time of its listing.

“The updated production target was not determined until after a meeting of the company’s board of directors, which was held after market close on 28 July 2025 to approve the FY26 budget,” Greatland stated in response.

“The updated production target was finalised after the board meeting and announced on 29 July 2025 in the company’s June 2025 quarterly report.”

On costs, Greatland said it believed the band increase was not “material”.

“The company did not consider that a reasonable person would expect the updated cost guidance Information to have a material effect on the price or value of its securities, given the difference in the mid-points of the AISC forecast ranges only increased by approximately 4 per cent.”

A company spokesman said Greatland’s response to the ASX queries confirmed its compliance with its continuous disclosure obligations.

Greatland is backed by Fortescue heavyweights including Andrew and Nicola Forrest, Elizabeth Gaines and Mark Barnaba.

The ASX sent the letter to Greatland a day after Australian Financial Review’s Street Talk column reported that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission had been asking questions about what the company and its advisers knew at the time of the float.

Taking questions from media at Diggers & Dealers on T

Intraday, you raise an interesting point. I haven't seen the exact wording of the question, but it seems to have been about whether GGP had engaged with ASIC after the AFR report.

Day's response - 'We weren't contacted to comment on that. If we had been, we would have said no' - is puzzling.

Surely he's not saying GGP would have refused to engage with the market regulator?

I wonder if there were crossed wires and if he was referring to the original AFR story. On that reading, he could be meaning the AFR did not contact him before publication and he would not have commented if they had.

All in all, an unsatisfactory performance. And at times the D&D presentation sounded like little more than a Telfer history lesson.

Must say I'm not convinced by chartist views on a share that ceases to exist in its present form as of Monday.

It gets a bit more complicated than that. From now on, the ASX dog will be wagging the Aim tail, and that is a good thing.

But aside from demand and supply there will be three factors at play: the POG expressed in USD, the Aussie dollar and the GBP.

How these resolve will determine the AIM price.

A conundrum more than a problem - and a nice conundrum to have after the last five long years ...

Iain Macwhirter, political commentator in Scottish edition of The Times, claims to detect "unmistakable" signs of Labour reverse-ferret on North Sea (£).

He concludes: "So don’t be surprised when No 10 discovers that, like the defence industry, oil and gas aren’t so evil after all. Perhaps he’ll start talking about a North Sea dividend. You read it here first."