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.
Further to my previous. Before the naysayers get in with their doom and gloom.
I indicated that the SP should increase as the buyback is performed in order to reflect the increasing share proportional holding for the same MCAP. I do recognise that as the cash is reduce to perform the buyback then the MCAP should also reduce and therefore, the buyback should be SP neutral.
However, the buyback will likely reduce free float and therefore improve strength of demand abd it will also improve the future dividend per share..
ATB RA
Jiffybag.
Agree that we're some way away from deciding what to do with any profits, however would suggest that your views on share buyback are a little cynical.
The raison d'etre of publicly listed companies is to improve the value for its shareholders.
This can be achieved by either distributing profits via dividends or by improving the share price....or both.
A share buyback scheme would normally require the prior approval of shareholders and, it would benefit shareholders in two ways:
Firstly, all other things being equal, a share buyback should improve the SP. A 10% share buyback should improve the SP by 11% as the same market cap is now covered by the remaining 90% of shares.
Secondly, any future dividends which are distributed should be greater (per share) than if there were no buyback. In the scenario above, future dividends should increase by 11%.
IMO, share buybacks are not simply to reduce dividends.
ATB RA
Dyslexic fingers
believe....
Rotherby.
I understand that, as soon as a mine is commenced, the MIning Act requires that a mine closure plan is created to demonstrate that the the mine can be rehabilitated successfully. I beleive that we have already created one for Havieron.
I also beleive that miners are required to update their mine closure plans on a regular basis (possibly yearly).
Take a read of this document:
https://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/Documents/Environment/REC-EC-112D.pdf
YNWA91 - Not sure I ever said that it was obvious. I was simply replying to your first question. The answer only became obvious to me when I did a little bit of research following the MRE RNS and then listened to Liam's interview with SD the following day. However, I was always of the opinion that the MRE would not necessarily move the SP dial significantly as our near-term income will rely more on extraction rates and not necessarily on the size of a fraction of a fraction of the ore body.
I'm also not sure that Bamps declared before the MRE that there would be no Reserve value.....but, like me he probably researched and determined why no Reserve value. So, I agree with you that I was only wise after the event.
Trippy - The previous MREs did have a mine plan that could be used to calculate reserves. That mine plan was included in the PFS. SInce then, we have been told that the mine plan is being "optimised". Therefore, my interpretation is that, until the optimisations are agreed and finalised there isn't a valid mine plan - therefore no way to translate Resource into Reserve. I also feel that SD could have chosen to manage shareholders expectations by advising ahead of the event that the MRE would not include Reserves. But I'm certainly not losing any sleep over the fact that he didn't or that the MRE did not include Reserves.
I have now resigned myself to the fact that NEM and GGP are following a very strict engineering, financial, legal and commercial process to ensure that our mine is developed in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. These multi-disciplined processes are complex and take time. We're now expecting the NEM Resources to be declared in February......however, unless the optimised mining plan has been finalised, I wouldn't be surprised to see them declare the same values as were declared by NCM in August.
Just managing my expectations.
ATB RA
Hi Trippy
The simple answer to your question on why there was no update to the Reserves in the latest MRE is that to translate identified Resources into mineable Reserves, you need a valid mining plan. As we know, the mining plan is currently being "optimised". Therefore, currently we have no valid mining plan to translate Resources into Reserves.
The question was asked by Liam in his latest interview with Shaun, the Dip transcript of which contained the following answer:
"yeah look you know we we're updating the resource and and there's always a natural sequence here you you do the update of the resource that's done effectively by a resource geologist so a geology team they then pass it across to the mine planning team that then which is mining engineers that then um update the mine plan and it's a more integrated process but fundamentally this is the passage of the information from geologists to my um to to mining engineers"
https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=863
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE9ly_RF7mk
Credit to Liam and Dip
Try this Tig
https://rupertresources.com/
Hi Zoros
Looking at your valuation 3Bn/2Bn/1.5Bn......I feel that you may have overegged the value somewhat.
If NCM/NEM could sell Telfer for $1 with the buyer taking the commitment to rehabilitate, I suspect that they would jump at the chance.
NEM have declared that it is their intention to cut costs and also improve the balance sheet. The Telfer mine is a huge cost and a significant drag on the balance sheet whilst Hav has a relatively small "carrying cost" in the NCM books. The book value of the two together is likely less that $500M.
As we've seen in the press surrounding the subject of the takeover, NEM may feel that Telfer/Hav is simply too small for their new enlarged company and would look to divest. I would have thought that a deal could be done at relatively low cash amounts which would include the other NCM tenements in the Paterson and some form of Royalty attached to Telfer and/or Hav. In the NEM books, the Hav carrying costs and the Telfer Rehab costs are immediately replaced by a Royalty feed which would undoubtedly have some form of value. Accounting smoke and Mirrors.
Leave the area to GGP and Rio to develop.
Could be pie in the sky but it's an option.
ATB RA
Hi Timeisourfriend.
Clearly not an exact science estimating the distance to the orebody. Might want to take a look here which might give a better idea of length of decline to date along with progress rates and predicted completion. Just remember, it's not an exact science.
ATB RA
https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=479
In his latest interview with BottleRocket, SD said that it was still his intention to "Get this lodged during the Spetember quarter"
September quarter is the three months to the end of September.
I am assuming that "lodged" means starting the ASX cross listing process.....a process, which I believe can take up to a further 13 weeks.
ATB RA
Is that your personal taxi in that article MH01?
Take a look at this link which proides more detail on the process behind listing on the ASX.
https://www.asx.com.au/listings/how-to-list/the-listing-process
In his latest interview with Liam, SD indicated that GGP was still targetting the September quarter to lodge the application. There are still a few steps following vefore the share is listed.
I doubt that SD would travel to the UK ahead of lodging the application as he will want to explain the application details which would not be public ahead of that date.
Freddie2
"Ra he has been known to change is mind though if it suits him depends how long he can go on with no income , expenses must be mounting"
Baseless statement - unless you are referring to the time he changed his mind from having no ice with his diet coke!!!
Fred Dobbs - Really not sure there is any need for the abuse and name calling. All I have done is provide the board with the truth. Haven't said that there wont be a raise, it's always possible......but, if you beleive SD, then it will be for an accretive purpose and certainly not to simply keep the lights on.
ATB RA
HavieronKing - below is mainly a repeat of a previous post which I have made in response to discussion on potential dilution.
All this talk of a raise at the time of the ASX listing was initiated due to a very loosely worded article in the Australian press. Our FUDsters will insist that, because SD has not denied it then it must be happening.
Facts are SD has been very consistent in the message that he has sent regarding dilution.
1. He anticipates that we are fully funded for Havieron but will not know until the FS. Therefore, there was unlikely to be any need for a raise for Havieron.
2. Should it be decided to do a raise, then it would be for accretive reasons.
3. His clear preference would be to make any raises at a higher level than we are currently.
The RNS released in response to the press article simply reinforced this position, no decision had been made either on a raise or on instructing a broker. The press release was clearly very loose reporting.
I would not expect SD to categorically state that a raise was not happening as no MD worth his salt would put himself in a position where he denies himself the option should an accretive opportunity come to the fore concurrent with the cross listing.
A raise is most definitely not a certainty.
ATB RA.
Not sure that I understand your logic 123Gold.
There are 2 significant unknowns associate with the ASX Cross Listing:
1. Will SD need to consolidate?
2. Will SD wish to raise funds?
On the first one, I understand that there may be a need to have an SP of around 11p in order to list on ASX - if that is the case, then we would currently need to consolidate.........or release lots of good news to increase the demand for shares and allow the SP to rise to the required level. Therefore, better to release good news ahead of the listing.
On the second (and my views on that are below), we would surely want to minimise the dilution, therefore we would want any raise to be made at the highest price possible. Therefore, better to release good news ahead of the listing.
(following text from a previous post)
As far as any raise is concerned
Our FUDsters will insist that, because SD has not denied it then it must be happening.
Facts are SD has been very consistent in the message that he has sent.
1. He anticipates that we are fully funded for Havieron but will not know until the FS. Therefore, there was unlikely to be any need for a raise for Havieron.
2. Should it be decided to do a raise, then it would be for accretive reasons.
3. His clear preference would be to make any raises at a higher level than we are currently.
The recent RNS released simply reinforced this position, no decision had been made either on a raise or on instructing a broker. The press release which prompted the RNS was clearly very loose reporting or designed to keep negative pressure on the SP.
I would not expect SD to categorically state that a raise was not happening as no MD worth his salt would put himself in a position where he denies himself the option should an accretive opportunity come to the fore concurrent with the cross listing.
A raise is most definitely not a certainty.
All this talk of a raise at the time of the ASX listing. Our FUDsters will insist that, because SD has not denied it then it must be happening.
Facts are SD has been very consistent in the message that he has sent.
1. He anticipates that we are fully funded for Havieron but will not know until the FS. Therefore, there was unlikely to be any need for a raise for Havieron.
2. Should it be decided to do a raise, then it would be for accretive reasons.
3. His clear preference would be to make any raises at a higher level than we are currently.
The RNS released simply reinforced this position, no decision had been made either on a raise or on instructing a broker. The press release was clearly very loose reporting.
I would not expect SD to categorically state that a raise was not happening as no MD worth his salt would put himself in a position where he denies himself the option should an accretive opportunity come to the fore concurrent with the cross listing.
A raise is most definitely not a certainty.
ATB RA.
Nice List L-A and Tiggerman.
Need also to add the potential to increase production from the current 2-3Mtpa. If this were to happen, throughput and profits should improve correspondingly. There are a number of means by which production could be increased and I'm hoping that this is one aspect that is being considered for the (delayed) FS.
ATB RA
Culpepper: "Why would Newcrest want to stall?"
Stall or Delay?
If you want to be cynical, then you would believe that NCM were stalling to try to starve GGP out and give themselves an opportunity to buy out GGP at rock bottom prices. Indeed, this may have been a strategy which part of the NCM BoD were following. IMO, this was put to bed with the Wyloo buy-in and could have been part of the reason that Sandeep decided to leave/was pushed. This, along with the Newmont bid and NCM SH disatisfaction sent NCM into a flat spin from which they had to recover. Save face, declare that you are delaying the PFS to optimise the plan.
On the other hand, there was no pressure to release a FS in October of last year - at that point, they knew that they were revising their schedules to release MREs in August with the financial reports. They could wait until August/September this year for the MRE/FS/DTM and have absolutely no impact on the progress but could have huge long-term efficiency/economical impact on Havieron. From a business perspective, it made complete sense to leave the FS to the latest possible point in order to incorporate the maximum amount of information.
Whilst I'm a real cynic, I'm not sure that I believe that NCM were out to get us, there may have been a half-hearted attempt to play games. I do think that there were significant power struggles within the NCM BoD which eventually culminated in SB leaving. I'm certainly more in the camp that NCM were simply doing what large corporations do and were being very deliberate and controlled in their planning - this unfortunately did us no good.
ATB RA
Completely agree with Jerry and James on this one. Why declare now which way you'd vote when you are unaware of the detail? Also why vote against exposing GGP to more demand which should drive up the SP.
Lots of different combinations open to SD when we cross list on the ASX.
Consolidation - Well we may need to consolidate in order to fulfill ASX rules to raise to the minumum SP, alternatively, we may have had good news which drives it to the required level ahead of the listing, alternatively, it has been suggested that SD may apply to have the requirement waived (if that is possible).
Raise - SD has been consistent in his narrative here. Against current plans, there is no need to raise......however, if there is an accretive opportunity, he may take that initiative. Nothing has changed in this regard except a very loose and unfounded press article.
Options available to SD:
1. Straight Cross listing, no consolidation and no raise.
2. Cross Listing, consolidation and no raise.
3. Cross Listing, consolidation and raise for non-accretive reason.
4. Cross Listing, conolidation and raise for accretive reason.
5. Cross Listing, no consolidation and raise for non-accretive reason.
6. Cross Listing, no consolidation and rasie for accretive reason.
Even these headline options do not tell the whole story as we're (as yet) not privvy to the detail such as the amount of dilution (if required), the price to be paid for new shares, any warrants or the target asset.
SD needs to paint the picture and win the votes required to enable the cross listing that he is clearly wanting. Consolidation and fund raise are pure speculation at this point.
ATB RA
Historical Market Cap and shares in issue shown here:
https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=4314#p4314