Member Info for notrader

Antigua - I think the answer is that IIs and 'the Market' always like to see both sides of the balance sheet. At the moment all we're seeing is the good bit - the exceptional resources we are finding. II's want to know the details of how much it will cost to develop and operate the mine, NPV figures and likely ROI. PIs are more willing to take a punt - small numbers, big returns. IIs look for big numbers, smaller (but reliable) margins.

In many ways, the total size of this resource is irrelevant to me, and I think, to most here. It might be relevant if it was a small scale discovery, but Hav alone is so big that it will be many years before a significant %age is extracted. They can only mine so much at one time.

Thinking ahead to the PFS, I find it interesting that NCM have begun work on the decline well in advance of any detailed statement of mining methods and Capex projections. To me this says that they are classifying expenditure on the decline as exploratory, although it will be a key factor in production. I don't know enough about mining to be sure, but I would have thought this unusual in mine development. This is likely to reduce the PFS/FS Capex figures and enhance the NPV figures.

LSE - "RNS articles are currently unavailable.

We are currently experiencing technical difficulties we will try to restore service as soon as possible."

Very, very impressive results. The remarkable thing is that after all the previous updates the high grade intercepts keep on coming.

Slight concern that Bottle is talking of mega millions of resource, but as a number of people have said, what is important is the Indicated figure for the new MRE, and a lot of these new drills probably won't be included.

Blantyreboy - just a little dig! There is a convention, though it's not formal, that Scotch is without the 'e' and all others are with (although the Canadians usually spell without - but that's ok because a lot of them are Scots). Become more complicated now with lots of upstarts starting to make their own versions. Sorry to distract, but we have a few hours before the main event.

Awax - shouldn't that be spelt whiskey?

"It’s not North Korea you know"

Now who was the poster who kept referring to North Korea?

Jiff - I agree whole heatedly. Sincere apologies if I'm seen to be too argumentative (especially after a few ouzos) - my intention is only to allow the high quality of information exchange on this BB to continue. I will continue to challenge the activities of trolls, but also seek to temper the excessive rampers. I only have about 300k shares, but they will stay with me until GGP becomes a producer.

Hmmm... just re-read that and apologies for typos. The meat of it is the last para (edited}

I could go on - there are hundreds of examples. Why can't you just admit that your theory of SP fall at that time was due to some 'big players' engineering a drop in the SP so they could undertake a 'massive' buying spree" was wrong

I actually don't think people here would think less of you if you admitted you were wrong - quite the opposite.

Hydro - " I stand by what I reported back then"

Ok, here's some quotes;, and I have no idea what relevance the '39% shorters' has;

"My contacts are telling me that Instos on the buy side in the US are loving this mahoosive discount.. as soon as this seller is out then IMO we bounce hard and the MMS will br happy let the PIS chase it back up..." [SP was 24.5]

"Can anyone feel the institutional buying... it's on again right now... How far do they push it and how many do they want..?" [Sp was 26.75]

"Because there is a major player in the market building a significant position in GGP. I think they have 200-300m shares now" and the next post "One might assume/conclude they're looking at achieving 10% and with that most probably a seat on the board.." [SP was 28.25] same day
"I dont know who the buyer is... Sorry. I can speculate. But that's it. Ask yourself who would want 5-10% of GGP"

"lI can't decide Spy if it's 1 buyer or two at work separately.... but between them they have hoovered a lot of shares (and I'm guessing because it's not transparently showing on BT yet)... But it's got to be around c200m. They've been at it since December almost every day: 2 x 1m buys , 3 x 500k buys and then 7m buy 6m buy and another 1m it's insatiable. Somebody wants a seat the board. I'm sure." [SP 28p]

"I'm still here. Fully loaded. And whilst it's hard to watch... I'm going nowhere, because I can see exactly what's behind these tactics. Big buyers are placing orders at 1m to 1.5m are they are in full control. They're rinsing out weaker holders by setting progressively lower large buy limit order prices. No point engaging with the nasty folk... Clear as day what's happening... Come back in a month and see where we're at, if you're struggling with this market and its tactics."

I could go on - there are hundreds of examples. Why can't you just admit that your theory of SP fall at that time was due to some 'big players' engineering a drop in the SP so they could undertake a 'massive' buying spree" I actually don't think people here would think less of you if you admitted you were wrong - quite the opposite.

James - no, I'm alluding to the theories that while to SP was falling, it was due to some 'big players' engineering a drop in the SP so they could undertake a 'massive' buying spree. There was, and has not been, any actual evidence of that happening.

Tiggerman - absolutely no-one could disagree that Bamps deserves an award for poster of the year. The contribution he has made is, I think, unique amongst the shares discussed on LSE.

Hydro - well.... I'm still waiting for the TR1s from all the 'massive buying' early this year.

Rex

Perhaps one reason some are reacting less than positively to your posts is the phrasing you use in making your points. Your first post here chided Bamps for not sticking to published facts. Despite reasoned argument as to how the figures were arrived at, interpreted from published data, you continued to criticise anything not from official sources. '"Assumptions" and "ifs" - That's not a game I'm going to play.'

The trouble is, you do make assumptions. In your SP estimate calculations, you assume a POG, you assume an AISC, you assume an exchange rate. You posted "I know this is getting bigger every day." No you don't. you are assuming that unreported drill results will continue "hitting additional gold with every drill they do" When you invested here, you assumed that the SP would rise from current levels at some time in the future. There are no possible published facts which would make that a proven fact.

Thanks Bamps, interesting to see the big variances across mines, probably due to mining methods used.

ChartaRex - you might be interested that Newcrest include royalty payments in their AISC.

Bamps - just out of interest, are there any figures for annual Capex costs for those mines? Apologies if it's too much hassle.

Rex - with respect, and not intending criticism, but you used the 4.2Moz (including Cu) to calculate your valuation figure, deducting the AISC of $500 from the POG. But the AISC already includes credits from the Cu value, so you are in effect including it twice.

I'm not trying to boost the valuation - my calcs make it lower! But I consider it pretty irrelevant except as a guideline as the figures will change over time.

Rex - can I point out that you have made 2 errors;

- the 4.2Moz is gold equivalent (ie including Cu). The Au figure is 3.4. The copper value will contribute to a lowering of the AISC which leads to the $500 estimate (Zoros, I think you have done the same).

- if you are estimating the value of the resource to the company, then you would not normally include Tax or Royalties. These are only payable when the product is sold, and might be offset by a number of different factors.

Hi Bamps, Zoros.

Agree with you both, that the resource estimates from the MRE are way out of date. However, I am focusing on what will be classified as indicated in the new MRE, as that will be what will be used in the FS/PFS for stage 1. I believe, and I think you've said much the same Bamps, that the indicated will not be spectacularly more that the previous inferred, partly due to stricter estimating criteria, and much new drilling covering different areas. So, much of the 100m of new drilling will not contribute to the indicated figures.

Anyone who doesn't believe there will be Stages 2, 3 etc (just at Hav) shouldn't be invested here.

Rex - "Based on the current resource we are fully valued"

That is a strong statement - please provide the calculations you have made to arrive at that conclusion.

Have you read any of the broker reports on Havieron? They disagree with you, applying varying levels of discount for risk factors. As stages of the project are completed, these risk factors will be reduced and the valuation will be adjusted.

If you only invest on 'facts' and believe we are fully valued at this SP, why did you invest here?

Kid - 'I wonder how the big institutions calculate their risk assessment?'

I posted this in June, and I think it still hold true: "There seems to be an assumption that IIs have sticky fingers and high rates of II holdings reduce volatility. Not necessarily true. Many investment houses actively trade with a %age of their stock, churning buys and sells against price movement. Their aim after all is to generate trading profits and do not just sit on their investments. Blackrock, a significant GGP holder, is particularly known for this. Some of them are rumoured to use their significant holdings to create artificial price movements to enhance their trading.
There are different classes of II. Many of the investment funds have self-imposed rules about the types of shares they can invest in. A large number will not deal with AIM shares.
Similarly, many IIs have guidelines for investing in 'speculative' stocks, especially those who are producing no revenue.
Also, those who do invest in mining stocks have guidelines about derisking thresholds. No matter how seductive, they are unlikely to invest of the basis of inferred MREs. When inferred become indicated, the risk factor reduces, but is still significant. It is only at FS or PFS stage, where a clear picture emerges of costs v JORC assured assets, with associated timescales and NPVs, might the risks be considered acceptable. This is why the much maligned broker reports are where they are - they recognise the risk consideration the IIs work with."

It does seem, though perhaps too early to tell, that the sustained selling pressure has greatly reduced, probably now just down to profit taking by short term traders.