Member Info for manu17

No shares to be had, hold firm PI`s

It use to be all about Mollacas until that failed to get off the ground, then it was all about Los Calatos until WH let 70% go for nothing, now its all about Miraflores. What next Mr Howe are you going to rise the Titanic ! or mine on Mars.

I`ll keep mine long way to go with this you`ll never get back in here below this SP. this is something very rare AIM a very good CEO with form Thanks RP one of the good guys.

http://www.*************.com/views/23640/wishbone-why-i-am-certainly-not-selling-now-the-maths-are-compelling We are almost 200% ahead on our investment in Wishbone Gold (WSBN) with the shares at 0.815p and I must admit that in recent weeks, I have, several times, thought about banking a few gains. But then came Thursday's statement from the company and I did the maths again - am I mad? This stock could still be extraordinarily cheap. Hear me out before you send for the men in flapping white coats.Wishbone is a dealer in gold bullion and on Thursday it said that after a couple of months of operation via its recently bought Black Sand subsidiary it was already shipping and that it was on track to hit 100kg per week of shipments by the calendar year end. Now do the maths...Richard Poulden, the head honcho at Wishbone, confirmed to me that breakeven point is 25 kg but that he wants to increase the overhead to drive growth FROM 100kg so that breakeven point becomes 45 kg. The margin Wishbone earns on each trade is 2-4%.So using a 3% margin on the Poulden maths, the run rate by Christmas is for a net profit ( there is no tax in Dubai where this company operates or Gibraltar where it is registered) of 3% of 55kg of gold - call that 30 grammes times 55 = 1650g which at a spot price of $42.77g works out at a profit per week of $70,571. Annualise that and one gets to $3.669 million - shall we call that £2.77 million.And that is just for starters, Wishbone clearly intends to do far higher volumes going forward. At 0.815p the market cap is £6.19 million but if Black Sand makes a profit in excess of $1 million its vendors get another 240 million shares in Wishbone so the fully diluted market cap is now £8 million.Trading businesses do not achieve sky high multiples and there are risks of non delivery but to make a statement about December volumes half way through September is someone one only says if very confident of hitting goals. Poulden is not a dim millenial, he knows the rules.So given that 100 kg is only base camp put the shares on a PE of 10 times the annualised run rate at Christmas 2016 and you get a market cap of c£28 million. On a fully diluted basis that implies an initial share price of 2.8p. I had previously said that I was looking to sell at 1p plus. The maths suggests that selling at anywhere close to 1p would be giving the shares away too cheaply. Whatever...my finger is certainly not on the sell button now. - See more at: http://www.*************.com/views/23640/wishbone-why-i-am-certainly-not-selling-now-the-maths-are-compelling#sthash.zdkkY6yH.dpuf

He`s still happy with Wishbone even more so have a listen. http://www.*************.com/index.php?q=wishbone&s=search

Sorry but this man they call a CEO is bad for your Wealth, 10 bagger in your dreams with what ? More promising of shareholder value? Dream on.

So it's more fast track from out Mr Howe is it ? must be his favourite word he's been saying it for years,bull, says it all really as there are no comments about your RNS Mr Howe seems PI's have finally realised your all wind and waffle and more.

"There is also talk of WW3 breaking out!" I hope not for all our sakes.

The reason is that official gold – the gold owned by central banks and finance ministries – is about 35,000 tonnes. Total gold, including privately held gold, is about 180,000 tonnes. That’s 145,000 tonnes of private gold outside the official gold supply. If any central bank wants to expand the money supply, all it has to do is print money and buy some of the private gold. Central banks are not constrained by mining output. They don’t have to wait for the miners to dig up gold if they want to expand the money supply. They simply have to buy some private gold through dealers in the marketplace. To argue that gold supplies don’t grow enough to support trade is an argument that sounds true on a superficial level. But when you analyse it further, you realise that’s nonsense. That’s because the gold supply added by mining is irrelevant, since central banks can just buy private gold. The third argument you hear is that gold has no yield. It’s true, but gold isn’t supposed to have a yield. Gold is money. I was on Fox Business with Maria Bartiromo recently. We had a discussion in the live interview when the issue came up. I said, “Maria, pull out a dollar bill, hold it up in front of you and look at it. Does it have a yield? No, of course it has no yield, money has no yield”. If you want yield, you have to take risk. You can put your money in the bank and get a little bit of yield – maybe half a percent. Probably not even that. But it’s not money anymore. When you put it in the bank, it’s not money. It’s a bank deposit. That’s an unsecured liability in an occasionally insolvent commercial bank. You can also buy stocks, bonds, real estate, and many other things with your money. But when you do, it’s not money anymore. It’s some other asset, and they involve varying degrees of risk. The point is this: if you want yield, you have to take risk. Physical gold doesn’t offer an official yield, but it doesn’t carry risk. It’s simply a way of preserving wealth. I believe the primary way every investor should play the rise in gold is to own the physical metal directly. At least 10% of your investment portfolio should be devoted to physical gold – bars, coins and the like. You can discover more about my thoughts on gold by picking up a copy of The New Case for Gold here. Best wishes, Jim Rickards Jim Rickards For Money Morning Share this article today:

I’ve done that calculation, and it’s fairly simple. It’s not complicated mathematics. Just take the amount of money supply in the world, then take the amount of physical gold in the world, divide one by the other, and there’s the gold price. You do have to make some assumptions, however. For example, do you want the money supply backed 100% by gold, or is 40% sufficient? Or maybe 20%? Those are legitimate policy issues that can be debated. I’ve done the calculations for all of them. I assumed 40% gold backing. Some economists say it should be higher, but I think 40% is reasonable. That number is $10,000 an ounce. In other words, the amount of money supplied, given the amount of gold if you value the gold at 10,000 dollars an ounce, is enough to back up 40% of the money supply. That is a substantial gold backing. But if you want to back up 100% of the money supply, that number is $50,000 an ounce. I’m not predicting $50,000 gold. But I am forecasting $10,000 gold, a significant increase from where we are today. But again, it’s important to realise that there’s always enough gold to meet the needs of the financial system. You just need to get the price right. ---------- You may be interested in ---------- Jim Rickards’s brand new book has landed! Best-selling author Jim Rickards’s brand new book, The New Case for Gold, has landed… Find out how you can grab a FREE special edition copy ASAP. Capital at Risk. Postage cost applies. ---------------------------------------------- Regardless, my research has led me to one conclusion – the coming financial crisis will lead to the collapse of the international monetary system. When I say that, I specifically mean a collapse in confidence in paper currencies around the world. It’s not just the death of the US dollar, or the demise of the euro, it’s a collapse in confidence of all paper currencies. In that case, central banks around the world could turn to gold to restore confidence in the international monetary system. No central banker would ever willingly choose to go back to a gold standard. But in a scenario where there’s a total loss in confidence, they’ll likely have to go back to a gold standard. The second argument raised against gold is that it cannot support the growth of world trade and commerce because it doesn’t grow fast enough. The world’s mining output is about 1.6% of total gold stocks. World growth is roughly 3-4% a year. It varies, but let’s assume 3-4%. Critics say that if world growth is about 3–4% a year and gold is only growing at 1.6%, then gold is not growing fast enough to support world trade. A gold standard therefore gives the system a deflationary bias. But that’s nonsense, because mining output has nothing to do with the ability of central banks to expand the gold supply. The reason is that of

The case against gold? From Jim Rickards, for Money Morning Dear Derek Abrahams, Jim Rickards It’s no secret that I am a big believer in gold. But today I want to take a look at the case against gold… Starting from a low of about $250 per ounce in mid-1999, gold staged a spectacular rally of over 600%, to about $1,900 per ounce, by August 2011. Unfortunately, that rally looked increasingly unstable towards the end. Gold was about $1,400 per ounce as late as January 2011. Almost $500 per ounce of the overall rally occurred in just the last seven months before the peak. That kind of hyperbolic growth is almost always unsustainable. Sure enough, gold fell sharply from that peak to below $1,100 per ounce by July 2015. It still shows a gain of about 350% over 15 years. But gold’s lost nearly 40% over the past four years. Those who invested during the 2011 rally are underwater, and many have given up on gold in disgust. For long-time observers of gold markets, sentiment has been the worst they’ve ever seen. Yet it’s in times of extreme bearish sentiment that outstanding investments can be found – if you know how and where to look. There’s already been a change in the winds for gold so far this year. A change that, in many ways, I predicted in my most recent book: The New Case for Gold. But today I want to show you three main arguments mainstream economists make against gold… And why they’re dead wrong. The questionable case against gold The first one you may have heard many times. “Experts” say there’s not enough gold to support a global financial system. Gold can’t support the entire world’s paper money, its assets and liabilities, its expanded balance sheets of all the banks, and the financial institutions of the world. They say there’s not enough gold to support that money supply; that the money supplies are too large. That argument is complete nonsense. It’s true that there’s a limited quantity of gold. But more importantly, there’s always enough gold to support the financial system. But it’s also important to set its price correctly. It is true that at today’s price of about $1,300 an ounce, if you had to scale down the money supply to equal the physical gold times 1,300 that would be a great reduction of the money supply. That would indeed lead to deflation. But to avoid that, all we have to do is increase the gold price. In other words, take the amount of existing gold, place it at, say, $10,000 dollars an ounce, and there’s plenty of gold to support the money supply. In other words, a certain amount of gold can always support any amount of money supply if its price is set properly. There can be a debate about the proper gold price, but there’s no real debate that we have enough gold to support the monetary system. I’ve done that c

W Howe is planning a trip to the Uk ? is that right well if you get the chance ask him why he screwed Shareholders, my guess is he`s coming not to see PI`s it maybe for more funding and dilution which again will screw PI`s as its that time of the year again when he is running out of cash, only my opinion remember last November and SP Ange RNS Number : 5213El. remember the options which many of us paid 0.26 and got screwed, and before anyone says I`m having a rant I`m only stating the obvious. Going from 4.0 down to 0.17 in four years and he is still feeding IMO bull, value for shareholders where ?

Still a few sellers about but that's ok they`ll go into safer hands. :-)

its a little gem this one ! and under the radar.

Yes me to, these shares will be like gold dust on good news and hard to get hold of.

MM`s short of Stock ? yes most are in safe hands now. I hold 8.5 Mil and I`m not selling any RP is one of good guys in AIM.

Nice to see some sells so they move into safer hands and will be held.

Yeah we are just to see how many more PI`s Howe sucks in, why invest in this CEO when he spent millions on a mine where he never secured access first, school boy error ! have good read of the last four years RNS`s then you should be able to work out many many more blunders.

Expecting another tick up today great RNS yesterday, well done RP.

Well said CUDD. Re-rate never in our life time ! Howe sold 70% of MNC for nothing the capital raised will be used to finance what remains for the benefit of CD Capital Fund PI`s were sold out by the BOD anybody holding share at the time of the deal lost 70% of there value at the stroke of a pen any long term holders should be well pi--off by this deal and if you can`t see it then its time you gave up investing. I would not surprise if they even try to take this private. IMO,DYOR, would not surprise if they try and take this post down again as they have before.