Member Info for notrader

This is probably one or more big players churning their holdings - SP has risen a fair bit since mid-May - realising profits (probably with shorting alongside), and they will buy back at the lower prices.

TT - 'This is where I don't quite understand some investors view about "fair value".'

Everyone seems to be concentrating on the resource side, but are missing the other side of the equation. To assign 'fair value' 'the market' will need accurate information on the costs associated with getting the resource out of the ground. At the moment, there is no reliable information available, so they cannot assign NPV or calculate CAPEX or AISC. This is what the PFS and later the FS will detail, and allow analysts to determine 'fair value'

Hydro - have you ever heard of the acronym IMO, frequently used on BBs when someone presents something they believe might be true but have no definitive evidence to back it up? "Evidence suggests" is far from definitive

Hydro - You stated clearly that GH was the reason for the recent fall. However, your "evidence" of this is his selling of shares, which you acknowledge was some time ago. The recent high of 22p was on the 8th June. Please explain how GH's selling at least a month ago triggered this fall.

I don't know. But I didn't present as a fact, without evidence, something which could have a variety of different explanations. Questions -
When did Heddle sell his shares?
When did the price start to drop from its month high of 22p?

Hydro - "But he's the reason we've dropped so far."

Do you have the evidence to be able to present that as a fact?

JTB - Perhaps instead of carping at others you could provide us with your opinion as to the level of resource evidenced by the assay results so far at Havieron and an assessment of the broker notes.

All his posts on CNA are negative. Sounds like a disgruntled former employee.

For a guy showing gains of over £300K at a profit of over 1,700% you seem unusually bitter.

Matty

Perhaps you could give us one or two pointers as to what you think he could or should be doing to raise the SP

Bamps - In my post yesterday I did not mean to imply that all growth drilling was not needed at this time; I used a poor choice of words. What I was trying to emphasise was that it appears NCM are concentrating on drill results that will contribute to the classification of the Hav resource as measured, as required for the (first) FS and mining approvals. We know that they are targeting the ore available via the decline for first extraction.

I know the FS will assess the economic viability of proceeding to extraction, but with their quoted timescales I think this will require measured resource for a comparatively limited area. They know that there is economically viable ore at depth, but I don't think they need to prove it to measured or proved status for first extraction to proceed. The mining of Hav will be a multi-stage process over a number of years, so the process of drilling at depth and away from the immediate target area will continue and there will be more FS's in the future.

Interested to know if you have a feel for the level of resource that they might need to prove the viability of the initial extraction phases - you have much more knowledge of associated CAPEX costs than most others, and I would value your opinion

Lebugue - "Total drilled 28 Jan to 10 Jun: 25,916m for 37 holes "

No. That is the total reported. Is it possible that you have answered your own question?

Quant - is that the best you can do?

Hydro - yes, but the only holes that matter for the PFS are infill for the resource already identifies for Hav. Those were the results delivered Weds. Exploratory drilling will continue outside Hav but it is not critical to the main objective

Zoros - thanks for the ego boost!

I feel there's too much second guessing by posters here. I am confident that the boards of both companies know what they are doing and are following a strategy to deliver a mine. The short term SP is irrelevant to them, and should be to us as LTHs.

Hydrogen - because both companies, particularly NCM, are focused on proving up resources to support the decision to mine. NCM are in control of Hav drilling which is most of the 65,000m. The nearest I can come to a conspiracy is that they are prioritising the assays of the cores which contribute to the resource upgrade, others are on slower track.

Personally, I prefer to leave them to get on with it rather than try to second guess their every move.

I think there's some false assumptions about how 'the market' works. Some comments;

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 ere - they recognise the risk consideration the IIs work with.

Which brings us to the positives which many seem to miss. Quite a few have expressed disappointment at the progress reported in the NCM update. I view it quite differently - it is one of the most significant reports related to Haverion so far because it seems different in focus from previous. Reading between the lines, it appears that NCM are focused on the next stages for the project. They have largely ignored the outreach drilling, except within the heart of the Hav system, and concentrated on the infill. This suggests to me that they are confident that they have identified enough resource to justify taking the mine project forward. Outreach drilling is now mainly cosmetic - looks good but does not advance the number one priority. That priority is to move the resource to indicated, enabling production of the JORC assesment, PFS and FS as soon as possible.
They could continue to drill the bejasus out of the whole area, but there is plenty of time for that (for NCM) after the decision to mine is made. I was more than happy to see the report focus on the important stuff.

Like to see more debt reduction, but I will be buying more with any SD. Many benefits to long-term investors by reinvesting divis.

Would not touch anything that Richard Poulden was associated with. Track record in returning value to himself rather than shareholders.

Sundance - use adguard or similar add-on to your browser. No more ads here or anywhere else!

Back to waiting now. Only been here 10 years.