Member Info for MF11

Firstly, I thought it might be beneficial to provide a little background information/education on the subject, as I am not sure everyone understands the basic process behind each rebalance.

Although the GDXJ snapshot takes share price movements into consideration within a rebalance snapshot, this along with other metrics ) predominantly around the share register to enable calculation of the Free Float), all of the metrics will be used to determine the constituents of the index:

1. Whether there are to be new entries or deletions from the index

2. What changes need to be made to the Free Float Factor to be used when calculating each constituents Free Float Market Cap

Once the above in known, when the rebalance is announced it will add up the Free Float Market Cap of all constituents, and calculate the weighting as follows:

1. The top 5 by Free Float Market Cap will be allocated 30% of the GDXJ Funds (1=7.0%, 2=6.5%, 3=6.0%, 4=5.5% and 5=5.0%), noting that the Top 5 are determined on a semi-annual basis and will remain as the exact top 5 for the preceding quarter.

2. The other constituents (including new entries) will be allocated the remaining 70% of the GDXJ funds. This will be determined by dividing the Free Float Market Cap for each constituent to fit into this 70%.

You also need to understand that the underlying MVIS index updates on a daily basis to reflect the Share Price movements of each constituent. During this quarter the GGP weighting has fluctuated between 0.71% and 0.95%, currently sitting at 0.94%.

So the fact that GGP has been the the 2nd best performing constituent in the MVIS index since the last rebalance has already been reflected by GGPs weighting increase of 0.71 to 0.94%.

So when the rebalance occurs, if there are no changes to the constituents of the index, and no changes to the Free Float Factor for all of the constituents, there will be NO changes to each constituents weighting (as the weightings will have been have been correctly updated via the daily component updates provided by MVIS during the period).

@JiffyBag - There is was a concern that VanEck were complicit in trying to control the Share Price of Greatland Gold, and give that at the end of Q3 2024 they had $18 Million of shares on Loan (equivalent to approx 195 Million shares), and as such was noted in my complaint to the SEC.

That said the amount of Shares on Loan as of Q4 Close was only $141K (approx 1.7 Million shares), so it is highly likely that investors (term used loosely) used VanEck as a vehicle to make money whilst the deal for Havieron / Telfer went through.

What @dumbnbro posts is pretty selective, and although VanEck US are trying to hide behind such specifics within the prospectus. It is clearly against the sprit of the intended investment principles of the fund and more specifically misleading to their investors.

The prospectus clearly states that it is a "passively" rather then "actively managed fund, and that being the case would give them NO leeway in choosing to actively mis-track a stock, and also states that they do not try to "beat" the market. It also alludes to the fact that management decisions should be made where "Full replication" is not feasible". There are no circumstances as it stands that prevents VanEck from fully replicating the index with regards to Greatland Gold.

The above fundamentally forms much of the basis for my complaint to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Although the complaint also delves much deeper into different issues surrounding VanEck's management of the GDXJ fund and their deliberate mis-tracking of Greatland Gold within it.

Unfortunately complaints are investigated on a non-disclosure basis, so I will never know the findings from this. However, I can confirm that the complaint was fully logged and have had confirmation emails with regards to all correspondence and documents sent to the SEC in regards to this issue.

@element1 - please stick to subjects you know something about. Some of your posts are actually quite useful. It's just the ones related to the GDX/GDXJ that are misguided.

FYI - I never said that AIM shares could not be held in the GDX, I actually said that I had read that it's possible that the index would not buy off AIM, caveated with the fact I hadn't checked. Despite this you ignorantly use Pan African Resources as an example, Pan African Resources have dual primary listings, and Vaneck buy their holding from the South African exchange.

I may post my findings on the GDXJ after it's been announced on Friday night. Given it's impossible to tell if it should in theory be a net buy or sell until the announcement has been made.

That said as previously highlighted the US quote is currently approx 190 million short, and they should have to buy shares to cover this shortfall at some point, and it does make sense to do this alongside a rebalance.

Please be aware that I have spent hundreds of hours on the subject, liaising with both Greatland Gold management team and directors at Vaneck with regards to the GDXJ holdings. I know the subject extremely well, so I don't appreciate the condescending nature of your posts.

@element1 - you can lead a horse to water but not make him drink.

You can cut and paste what you like but it doesn't mean you understand it.

@element1 - sorry but you are totally clueless on the subject.

Read my previous posts on the subject and both th US and UK prospectus on the subject and you might educate yourself.

Re GDX - In theory it should have already been announced to both the company, and those that track the Index, via the 6 day rule that appears in the prospectus.

Given Vaneck would have to acquire well in excess of 500 million shares for this by Friday 21st, and the relatively low volume today, I think it is unlikely to happen this quarter.

However as shown on multiple occasions I could be wrong.

@element1 - I'm afraid that is not how MVIS rebalance the GDXJ.

The snapshot is used to determine the companies that should be included in the index, and what the free float of each companies available share register.

The announcement this Friday will provide an update to included companies, and via the free float map of each company, estimate the new weightings for all companies. This rebalance will be implemented the following Friday 21st March.

As a reminder the US quote should hold approx 390 million shares to equate to the current MVIS weighting of 0.95%. They currently hold just under 200 million shares, 0.48%.

Vaneck don't believe that they are doing anything wrong holding this underweight amount. So there is nothing guaranteed with regard to this rebalance.

One day they will be forced to correct their shortfall in Shares held. I would guess that will be when we reach the top 5 companies within the index, or when the SEC contact them in regards to the outstanding complaint that has been raised against them.

NO certainly not VanEck for the GDXJ, MVIS aren't scheduled to announce the rebalance weightings until Friday 14th March, and in any case the daily holdings suggest they are still selling (and by more than they should be).

Morning Star suggest the buying is:

Ninety One +49 million

Coopers +44 million

@lasata - absolutely clueless, in the bin you go.

Bloody autocorrect

For the GDXJ should have read for the GDX ....

For the GDXJ, GGP appear to meet all of the criteria to be included. However, I will caveat that by saying:

1. It is unclear if official announcement of mining related income would be required. Although we have confirmed that we're producing, no quarterly report has been issued showing sales/income.

2. I did read somewhere (not verified) that the GDXJ are precluded from buying AIM stocks.

So currently unclear, however if we were to be added the addition would be notified to the requisite parties a minimum of 6 working days prior to the quarterly rebalances implementation.

Please note that this is nothing to do with the current shortfall of GGP shares in the US quote.

The GDXJ is still underweight by approx 195 million shares. There weighting as of yesterday was 0.43% according to the fund it should track at MVIS it should be 0.85%.

As far as I am aware The Securities & Exchange Commission in the US are still investigating the formal complaint raised against Vaneck for this. Noting that in the US the complaint will be investigated on a non-disclosure basis, so we will never know their findings in relation to the complaint

To confirm Vaneck have just filed their N-Port return for Q4 2024 close.

It has now been reduced to $141k. Equivalent to approx 1.41 Million shares.

Noting that the Q3 2024 report stated that they had $18 million worth on loan. This was obviously related to the equity release.

And again from - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/markets/msci-rebalancing-takes-effect-today-driving-1-billion-in-passive-flows-indusind-bank-zomato-hyundai-motor-india-stocks-in-focus-12952632.html/amp

Global index provider MSCI's rebalancing will come into effect following the close of the trading session on February 28. The rebalancing is likely to led passive inflows of around $1 billion, according to estimates.

The stocks that have seen addition, deletion, or significant weight changes during the the February 2025 review are likely to see volatility in trade during today's session.

@lasata - especially for you

https://www.msci.com/quarterly-index-review

What a load of inane drivel. GDXJ this, GDXJ that, somebody knows something, from etc. If only people did some research.

The increased trading today is simply due to it being the last trading day before the implementation of the new weightings for all of the MSCI indexes on Monday 3rd March.

Https://bpd-space.nyc3.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/scp/250220-ggp-scp-telfer-drilling.pdf

@Pooroldman - Could you please elaborate - "I presume the drop in sp is to enable mm’s to obtain enough spares to feed the ETF shortfall. Check the big transactions at close of market!"

If you are talking about the shortfall VanEck has in it's U.S Quote for the GDXJ you are way of the mark.

If it another ETF you are referring to, I would be extremely interested to know which one.

@96dc2 - "Hope no one got caught with their pants down trading this.. 🤣"

Well VanEck certainly have, still 195 Million short of their required holding.

This will be costing them big time. Serves them right!