The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
@StarBright
"The move from 0.75% to 0.85% will have happened BECAUSE of realised price action in index constituents. It doesn’t mean that the ETF suddenly has to go out and buy more GGP shares. It is thus incorrect, @Hydrogen, to state that we “know” that there’s a buy incoming on Friday associated with the rebalance."
So you are saying that there was no GDXJ Rebalance (change of weightings to all constituents based on their changed MARKET CAP), but simply that index constituents changed due to realised price action.
That is not how I understand it, as I can see signing onto the Vaneck site that a rebalance did occur, and all companies have been reweighted from their original weighting at the start of day on rebalance date.
If that is the case what is the purpose of their rebalance?
The GDXJ ETF was rebalanced last night 11.03.2022.
Current weighting 0.75%
Rebalance Weighting 0.85%
Suggests a requirement to purchase more than 10% of current holdings (perhaps a 20 Million plus purchase next week).
What might that do to the SP?
I posted this on Telegram earlier.
I might be stating the bleeding obvious, but here goes .....
Purely conjecture on my part, but I find the timing and dates used in latest GGP MRE update interesting.
Newcrest announced their intention to persue the potential take up of the additional 5% at FMV. None of us know the details of the agreement, and potential cut-off dates to be used when calculating the FMV. My expectation would be that a date would be set to put a line in the sand as to the data be used to calculate the FMV. I would expect this to be the date on notification by NCM of the wish to proceed with the take up of this option (i.e. mid December 2021).
Given that the Valmin code suggests multiple different valuations will be used to value the JV for each of the different resource types (i.e.
$x per Oz indicated
$y per OZ inferred
$z per OZ probable reserve
$w for potential future resource growth
One could rightly assume that NCM came in to the negotiations armed with MRE1 and stated this is the known resource to be used for calculation of the FMV (given that they were the latest available figures to be readily available).
If NCM's valuation is based upon the above (MRE1) for indicated / inferred etc. By producing MRE2 (cleverly backdated to prior to take up of the 5% option), SD has automatically refuted NCM's valuation by stating that the known figures that could be used, should be based on GGP's MRE2 not MRE1 (as it includes data prior to the take up of the 5% option).
In my opinion SD by his actions, has said to NCM, we understand how you have come to your valuation for FMV, but you were using the wrong figures. Go back, recalculate your numbers and come back with a new offer for the FMV using our MRE2.
To paraphrase Shaun from the Proactive interview - "Ultimately Greatland see it (MRE2) is a "material update" and should be released to the market." - Perhaps it is not viewed as material for a major like NCM but GGP have market rules to adhere to. Possibly running a fine line if we do not release one.
Agreed Bamps - however, as nicely put in the article I posted below.
By association any results posted by Newcrest are assumed to apply and be agreed by GGP. They are obviously un-aligned.
From the article:
The point that Greatland is making is that Newcrest has released its annual report on reports and reserves to the Australian (ASX) market. As Greatland and Newcrest are working side by side and rather together on much the same mineral deposit what Newcrest says reflects upon Greatland. So, for example, if Newcrest says reserves are this, then that gives an indication that Greatland reserves must be thus.
https://www.asktraders.com/analysis/greatland-gold-wants-to-explain-newcrest-announcement-why/
Good take on the situation in this article.
The problem, such as it is, is that the Newcrest announced results seem to jar with what we think we know about Greatland. Which isn’t a state of affairs that anyone would or should be happy with. Greatland Gold then goes on to point out that the Newcrest announcement regarding Havieron has an information cut-off point of 12 Oct 2021. There have been Greatland information releases since then. Further, that 12 Oct point relies upon drilling information only up to 5 Feb 2021. Over a year ago – there has been more from Greatland in that timespan.
So, the information that is relevant to Greatland is that announced by Greatland since those cut-off points, we should not be assuming implications from the Newcrest data statement.
This all sounds a bit nitpicky but it is at the heart of how junior miners work. The entire development process runs first, think of something to look for, where. The next stage is, having found something potentially viable, to check and whether it actually is viable. Third, prove that properly, then actually go mining. Failure at any stage is to be avoided, hopefully.
https://www.seek.com.au/job/55970325?type=standout
Exploration Project Geologist
Greatland Pty Ltd
PerthCBD, Inner & Western Suburbs
Mining, Resources & EnergyMining - Exploration & Geoscience
Contract/Temp
https://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/resources-and-energy-major-projects-2021
Around 10 per cent of all projects are in gold, as price drives development
There are seventeen gold projects at the feasibility stage, with a combined capital expenditure of around $5.6 billion. Several companies have indicated that their projects may be close to progressing further. These include Newcrest and Greatland’s $529 million Havieron gold project in WA, Newcrest’s $1280 million Cadia PC 1-2 gold project in NSW, and Karora Resources’ $50 million Higginsville Mill expansion project in WA.
If only TakingMyTime was still here. He would eloquently summarise the RNS and what it means to us. However, as I see it.
1. Shaun Day has been here exactly 1 year and therefore would imagine this Perfomance Related bonus could only be issued now.
2. It incentivises both SD & CT to remain with the company long term and will prevent either from being poached by another company.
3. If they don't hit the targets they don't get the bonus, so nothing to moan about.
All in all it is preparing the company for the long haul and ensuring that we have a stable BOD for the major part of that journey.
@HeresHopin - As I said there is no OPTION on these and therefore no price will be paid. They will be awarded the said number of 0.01p Shares as performance related bonus. The 0,01 relates to the issue denomination of the share.
@HeresHopin - Yes some are old OPTIONS that had been previously granted, the RNS states that the expiry date for these have been extended.
The other part of the RNS is do do with Performance Related Bonus where the shares will be awarded to SD / CT based upon meeting certain criteria (note the word awarded rather than paid for - the RNS states the number of 0.01p shares to be awarded).
Thanks Dip - Brilliant as always.
Interesting to note from Shaun's interview - his quote "Yes, so back into the SE Crescent proper, that’s the focus of the PFS, where we’re doing the Starter Mine and trying to mine out plus 5g material, which will generate strong free cash flow for us immediately as we move into production"
However from the current MRE released by Newcrest
Maiden Ore Reserve - 14MT @ 3.72g/t for 1.6M Oz
Mineral Reserve - 53MT @ 2.1g/t for 3.6M Oz
Is he hinting at an upgrade of g/t on the original MRE as well as an increase in tonnage included in MRE2.
Everything coming from Shaun is extremely buoyant. I'm certainly looking forward to the end of Feb.
@StarBright - "@JiffyBag….? What conclusion did you draw from this?"
Not sure about Jiffy, but my conclusions are:
1. All figures used by Berneburg are extremely conservative.
2. All the fudders tend to use less than the numbers used by Berenburg so can immediately be ignored.
@petejh - I read your condescending diatribe with interest.
Fair enough you disagree with SAS's workings and come up with your own, but who the hell are you ridicule when your numbers are below most conservative numbers for the 5% FMV suggested by the brokers.
£110M! Too funny, bet the fudders love you on this board. How many have you fleeced?
@Gunst - It is extremely difficult to know what will be included in the calcs. As Dip66 has highlighted in the VALMIN code there are a number of different methodologies in calculating FMV, and what is included in the indicated, inferred and exploration upside is impossible to know at this stage.
However, my guestimations show that for 5Moz and no upside the FMV should be close to £100M.
We all know there is likely to be far more than that figures of potential for 20-30M Oz have been regularly mooted both by experts on this board and from many other industry experts. I would be hoping for a minimum FMV for the 5% of £300M if these figures are close to those used by NCM/GGP , possibly up to £500M.