Member Info for NoelShempsky

Hi Dibs,

My account was suspended for five days for posting links.

I don't understand the policy on this site regarding posting links.

Just search for "jsmineset".

What Sinclair has posted yesterday is a list of links to news that affects the gold price. His view is that all of the issues that are raised in those articles are indicators of serious problems in the world's economic system and that a major reset of the system is about to happen and it will be like nothing we have ever seen before. "Gold will be the last man standing" I believe is his phrase.

To be frank, I don't recall a worthwhile forecast from Sinclair in the last eight years, but, to be fair to him, in the eight years prior to that, he was spot on with every one of his forecasts for the gold price.

His site is update almost daily and old news drops of the bottom of the page so I don't how long it will be there.

NS.

I have been in FRES for quite a few years and in 2010, it might have been 2011, the company issued an RNS that had in it, my favourite two-word phrase - "special dividend".

We all know what happened to silver price after 2011, so that explains no more special dividends, but at least the company is currently able to pay the ordinary dividend.

Mexican politics worries me a little but, but there is something worrying me much more and I am wondering if anyone else is troubled by it.

How would you feel if the silver price went up by $10 or more and FRES was able to lift the dividend, but you lost your shares? They are taken away - confiscated.

Do you have your shares in an online account rather than holding a certificate at home?

In your online broker's Terms & Conditions, are there words to this effect?

"any investments held on your behalf may be pooled with those investments of other
customers" -

and -

"in the event of an unreconciled shortfall caused by the default of a custodian, you may share proportionately in that shortfall"

Two years ago, I switched brokers because my last broker introduced that clause and now the broker I switched to has introduced it.

Of course they say that chances of a custodian defaulting is "extremely unlikely", but they would say that wouldn't they. They call it extremely unlikely, but in a recession it can get ugly very quickly.

Can anyone recommend a good UK broker that does not have that clause? Thanks.

Hoping there never is a shortfall, and lets have another special dividend soon. GLA.

On the subject of the gold price - I think Jim Sinclair's site is worth a look today.

I'm glad to see the sp jump a little, but I wonder how long it will last.

As I said, I had AAU shares for years, but got so fed up of good news failing to lift the sp, that I sold out. It seemed that no matter how well the company was doing, the market ignored good news.

I got back in because I thought this time it will be different, as the gold price is going to rise substantially. Let's hope time proves me right.

GLA.

p.s. - an example of the shameful scaremongering of Bremainers - this is in today's news -

"Headmaster, 57, who told pupils Brexit will mean Santa won't be able to come to the UK anymore quits after being bombarded with parent complaints"

Somehow, my earlier post was cut short -here is the ending -

Then again he casts an unfounded aspersion - "I suspect he has no interest in AAU". It was quite a few years ago when I had the misfortune to buy into AAU. By misfortune I refer to the sp not the company. I weighed up the company and liked the look of their operations and the management. It looked like a winner, but, over the years I got fed up of the sp failing to respond to all the good news that the company put out in its RNSs. Early last year I sold the last of my AAU shares, but I recently bought back in and I seem to have caught a bottom. Let's hope that it was the bottom and the only way is up. With my current shareholding, I am in the money, but I need a much higher share price to recoup the loss on my previous batch of AAU shares.

So he wrote - "I suspect he has no interest in AAU" about me - but hang on, he is filtering me out, so why is is still going on about me?

By the way,,in4cedros - don't waste your time. You are banging your head against a solid brick wall. Bigots ignore facts and truth and will relentlessly maintain their barrage of opinionated bile.

To my detractors - I was never a Boy Scout, but I think their motto, "Be Prepared", is wise. It has generally been my experience that preparation works out well in the end and results in a better outcome than if you had not prepared.

I intend to do what I can in order to prepare myself for the possibility of the default of a custodian.

I did say that I reserve the right to defend myself if I am attacked, so here goes.

I thought John said he was going to ignore me, and yet he continues to attack me. What a weasel.

John says of me, "he repeated the concern time and time again when regulars weren't reacting to him in the way he wanted" -

- my very first posting on the matter was banned and removed. I re-posted it with the offending line removed. As for "regulars weren't reacting to him in the way he wanted" - I had asked for anyone to recommend a good broker who didn't have the worrying clause in their T&Cs. Since my post disappeared way down the list due to the board being swamped with drivel about totally off-topic comments, I asked again. It turned out that there are people who consider this matter to be worth discussion.

Just think about "he repeated the concern time and time again when regulars weren't reacting to him in the way he wanted" - it shows he feels that he is right, he can post as many times as he likes, however off-topic, but he thinks that I have no right to post my views and questions, which are relevant to shareholdings, or, in saying "time and time again", that there should be a limit on the number of times I can post - a limit set by him of course. To me that is smug arrogance on his part.

"regulars weren't reacting to him in the way he wanted" - translation - "how dare he talk about a subject that I don't like and interrupt our chat about cars, football and champagne".

In one of his posts he tries to dismiss his list of allowed topics as humour, but he also said that he was going to ignore me, but he continues to attack me, so that shows that we cannot beleive what he says and see the overall tone of his messages - bile filled rants, so I think he was actually serious about wanting to control the content of this board and see my previous point about "he repeated the concern time and time again when regulars weren't reacting to him in the way he wanted".

He writes - "I was then accused of being a Nazi by Noel". I didn't call him a Nazi. I said Gestapo and it was merely a euphemism for an oppressive force that suppresses free speech. Anyone not so filled with bile, as John's post reveal him to be, would have understood the context in which it was used I could have written "Who are you - the board policeman" but that lacks impact and he would still have taken issue with that.

Also, to my generation, Gestapo is not as offensive as he seems to see it. Jump to 10 mns 20 secs in - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=covFkWSIHlw and then there was 'Allo 'Allo.

Then again he casts an unfounded aspersion - "I suspect he has no interest in AAU". It was quite a few years ago when I had the misfortune to buy into AAU. By misfortune I refer to the sp not the company. I weighed up the company and liked the look of their operations and the management. It looked like a winner, but, over the years I got fed up of the sp failing to respon

Today's Trading Update is all good news, so good that I am disappointed that the share price has risen by only 8%, however i have the feeling that it could lead to a re-rating and we see the sp move up to 60p in the not-too-distant future.

I have faith in the company, but I worry about losing my money even if the shares do go to 60p. The reason is that in my broker's Terms & Conditions, there is a clause about the custodian.

It tells clients that investments held on our behalf may be pooled with those investments of other customers and -

"in the event of an unreconciled shortfall caused by the default of a custodian, you may share proportionately in that shortfall"

Two years ago, I switched brokers because my last broker introduced that clause and now the broker I switched to has introduced it.

Of course they talk about the "extremely unlikely" event of a custodian going bust, but they would say that wouldn't they. They call it extremely unlikely, but in a recession it can get ugly very quickly.

Does your broker have in the T&Cs, a clause about a custodian default and sharing in or particpating in a shortfall?

Can anyone recommend a good UK broker that does not have that clause? Thanks.

Hoping there never is a shortfall, and lets have 60p to 70p soon. GLA."

Thanks to Willowman and in4cedros.

In the past I had tried to ignore the off-topic posts, but sometimes my eye catches enough of them to convey the content. A couple of times I had seen anti-Trump posts and started writing a reply. I'm not a particularly strong Trump supporter, as a UK resident I'm not too bothered about US politics either way, but I was fed up of the one-sided and biased comments and the ignorance of the battle going on in US poltics.

So I wanted to have a say, but I stopped myself and said "Don't do it. Don't get involved in politics, it will only lead to arguments", and so I didn't make any posts on the topic.

Sadly, I got dragged into a debate about politics, but from now on, I intend to restrict my posts to AAU matters, gold in general, perhaps Turkish politics, but only regarding gold mining, and the matter of the risk to our holdings from a custodian default - but I reserve the right to step across that line in order to defend myself, should I be attacked.

My broker has still not answered the question I put to them - what are the custodians doing with shares that could result in a shortfall. My feeling is that my broker does not want to reply, but I ought to give them a few more days.

When I wrote - "snowflake Millennials who run away to safe spaces" - I mean those Millennials who are like that. I realise that not all Millennials are like that and I know that some people in other generations can have a snowflake mentality.

Apologies for any offense caused by my clumsily expressed comment.

Re John's attitude

I've put up with all those anti-Trump comments. I've never told anyone not to post them. I've never told anyone what they may or may not post. I just ignored them until today.

He didn't do likewise and ignore my posts that he didn't like. He gave me a list things that HE thinks I should be allowed to talk about, and then, when I post a mild disquisition (I got that word from Frasier by the way :-) ) on the issue of freedom of speech he throws a hissy fit.

His attitude is typical of lefty-liberals - the tactic - when you have lost the debate (on the issue of freedom of speech), then give up on the issue and cast aspersions ("I wonder if you even own AAU shares?") to make it a personal attack.

He obviously does not believe in the so-called British values of freedom of speech and democracy that Cameron and May have told us about. He must be one of those snowflake Millennials who run away to safe spaces when they are upset by someone having a different point of view. (This shouldn't cause offence as he is filtering me out)

Not Villa eh? Whoops, I just can't help upsetting people can I, even accidentally. You see I just ignored football posts. I had the grace just let others post what they like and I simply ignored them. It's a pity others cannot also have the grace to do the same and ignore posts they don't like.

in4cedros - you say - "John is not the board monitor - he gave you advice - that's his opinion" - yes, but he also told me what I may post about and not post about. Actually, my reply was regretably blunt. I needed to go out and, in haste, I knocked out a reply that left me wishing I had waited and written a more considered reply.

However, I found all the drivel about champagne and Ferraris.etc quite irritating, but I didn't tell people that they shouldn't be posting that stuff. In fact I posted this moring, "If no one wants to post about AAU or gold, I suppose there is no harm in going off topic", so I was right to be insensed by him laying down the law over what may be talked about and what may not.

He gave me his opinion, but it is as though he has not understood the issue or he wish to deliberatley obfuscate it. He talks of brokers who are too big to fail, but the risk does not lie with thee brokers, it is with the custodians, should they default.

John said any such losses "would result in legal challenges to Ts&Cs considered 'unfair'" - I don't fancy seeing it happen and then waiting and hoping that a legal challenge will get my money back. I don't think a legal challenge would succeed as we have accepted the T&Cs and the T&Cs say that we might lose our money \ shares. We agreed to it. I would rather fight this clause and have the risk removed than so that it never happens.

You mention that John has posted his views on Trump - he might be interested in my view -
https://www.jsmineset.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/h-768x973.jpg

Thank you for your posts in4cedros.

I was thinking about how many people read this board and perhaps I should post on boards with more readers, but I didn't know, still don't know, how to find out how many views the boards get.

I can't understand why there is so little interest in what could result in us losing all of our shares. There really does seem to be a "head in the sand" attitude. Note the comment from the Aston Villa fan - it's enjoy the bread and circuses and ignore the risks. I'll just try to add a bit of balance here as I am not trying to be a raving loony scaremonger - the risk is probably very low, but I would rather see it reduced to zero possibility.

I know how you feel when you get those phone calls. I like to play them along for a while before I hang up.

Anyway, thank you for your serious discussion of the T&Cs topic.

johnpwh, yes I have posted widely. As I say, I hope to get shareholders to kick up a stink and get the clause removed. This is a serious issue that ought to be concenring all those who have shares in a nominee account.

I don't know how you have the nerve to present a list of topics that you consider to be halal and tell me that T&Cs is haram. Who are you - the board Gestapo?

Hi BigBangs. Fair enough. That is what these boards are for - airing our views and discussing all points of view.

I realise that my negative attitude may be groundless and I hope you are right about a postive outcome.

A great deal of my negativity comes from seeing what happened to Acacia Mining, another Tanzania gold miner. Let's hope it turns out differently for Shanta.

Actually, I must have some confidence that it will turn out all right, as, at the moment, I am not consideriing selling any of my SHG holding.

My bigger worry is about having my shares confiscated by a custodian defaulting. Did you see my post about that before it got banned and removed?

Hi Paul208i,

Thank you for your comment.

Regarding "Mine are with Hargreaves Lansdown and I look at their annual report to get reassurance" - HL might be as solid as rock, but what about the custodian they use? I am sure my broker is also safe, but the point is that that clause talks of a custodian defaulting, then our shares are seized. It is not the broker risking our assets.

As for "there were 2 kind of worry, those that you could do nothing about, so forget them and those you could do something about, so sort it out" - I do hope to do something. As said to DesertJoe, I want to get UK shareholders kicking up a stink and get the clause removed.

The other thing I can do is, as you say, hold my shares in certificated form, which I mentioned in my original posting. In fact I am so worried that I am prepared to take them out of an ISA and hold them as paper at home and pay tax on the dividends. Paying tax on a dividend, and possibly CGT on gains, is better than having no dividends or shares at all.

Before I do that, I have put some questions to my broker and am still waiting for theim to reply. Hopefully they can reassure me, but to me they seem to not want to answer.

Well, sorry to be spreading fear and despondency and let's hope the default of a custodian never happens.

Hi DesertJoe - yes, there are many dangers.

We judge the risks in a company and if we think that the risk \ reward ratio makes it worth investing, then we go ahead and risk our money, but I don't think it is right that other people, to whom we have entrusted our shares, are putting them at risk.

A custodian is merely a trustee who holds the stocks for safekeeping. They are our property and they never become an asset of the custodian. Should a custodian go bust, then an adminstrator should take the stocks being held in their custody, i.e. clients' shares, and transfer them to another custodian, What are the custodians doing with the shares that can result in a shortfall?

How dare the brokers say that we must "participate" in any shortfall.

If you choose to be a sandpiper and not care about the risk of your property being stolen, then that is your prerogative - a caveat - you are an American I believe, so I don't know if this applies to you, but I have heard what Bix Weir said about the DTCC and Storm Michael, so perhaps it does.

Anyway, that is your prerogative, but I want us UK shareholders to kick up a stink and get brokers to remove that clause. They are meant to hold our shares in safekeeping not put them at risk. As you say, we already face enough risks and they should not be adding another one.

Hi BigBangs - in reply to you, I would say, see the posting from Des1967.

If no one wants to post about AAU or gold, I suppose there is no harm in going off topic with chat about Spa-Francorchamps, concert tickets and bottles of Champagne encrusted with Swarovski crystals.

Your bit of banter makes you seem very carefree. I wish I could be the same.

My hopes of acquiring some of life's little luxuries all hinge on my shares paying off, but there is a risk that they will be taken. That risk may be low, but if it does happen - I don't like to think about it.

Are you totally unconcerned about the risk of shares being taken because of a custodian default? Are you happy with your online broker putting that clause in the T&Cs?

I think we should all be objecting and make them take away the risk of the theft of our shares due to the actions of other people.