Member Info for Ricardo2019

I've got some t-shirts coming from Amazon.

> Me and a mate just worked that at 39k gold GGP would be circa £245 a share assuming $4k AISC. Nice.

Element1, Just for a laugh, I plugged that into my spreadsheet. And I'm not claiming that my spreadsheet is perfect or even close by any means, but it's interesting to test it. And it came up with £279 a share at a PE of 18 (not accounting for capex) at a combined 566koz PA.

> I think 90% of all gold companies would be bought out before 39k. Except Tony Beets.

Monty, They'd have so much cash I think the gold companies would be the ones doing the buying :)

Ah, gotcha. I should guessed that was the old money price but 31 being close to 32 I assumed it was a typo. Cheers.

Sorry, what's the number supposed to read?

Worth bearing in mind that SWS provides the lowest quality stock analysis the world has ever seen. They always produce stupid figures that make no sense.

Obviously we know GGP is worth more, not disputing that, but if anyone quotes SWS again I'm going to create a 'Hat of Shame' ('as seen on TV') and present it to you at the next Town Hall.. ;-)

I think there's a difference in our views in that I believe the details of the management plan is more influential to the SP than the metals price. Hopefully we'll find out before long. Either way, I hope we're all winners here.

Above 'Post Message' is a gray filters box. Press that and add 'Silverfoxchef'. He's a disruptor trader, trying to drive people away and get your shares on the cheap.

Jbe81, I need to point out that the conversation you replied was about share price. So when you said 'valuable' I assumed you were referring to value in the SP. If now you are talking about a valuation based on our resources then yes, I think I see what you are trying to say. It's likely there may be a party out there who would assign a higher valuation, and certainly the BoD would hope to benefit. However, I'm only talking about the SP and tangible value realised - not paper valuations - and so my statement definitely still holds true. Perhaps we had crossed-wires?

5% each daily would give us £9.27 next Friday. I'd love that but I'm not sure we'll get there without either the WDU results, resource updates, or the combined Havieron/Telfer plan. Mind you, I wasn't expecting well over £6 quite this soon either so don't take anything I say as advice, haha.

We will probably have to get used to periods over the next year of the share price being stable and not particularly exciting while we wait for big catalysts. That's not a bad thing of course, but now being a multi-billion company means we shouldn't expect too many consecutive days of 5% rises. Unless gold goes to $10k of course in which case all bets are off.

I wonder why it isn't just added to the revenue line along with the gold revenue. I can't get my head around that. But anyway, it sounds like I have to stop including the ~A$180m annual Cu revenue in my spreadsheet as Telfer revenue because it'll also be reflected in the lower AISC. Thanks.

Thanks also, esduk, for your earlier comment on my pricing assumptions. I will relook at those.

Very interesting discussions going on. Can anyone help me understand this please?

> As copper is a credit, higher copper prices should lower the AISC,

I've been including Cu revenue under total revenue - wrongly perhaps? If I use it to also lower AISC it feels like double counting, but I suspect that I'm missing something. I've seen 'copper is a credit' before but never understood actually what that means - I don't understand the Au/Cu relationship properly.

> Pretty hard to argue that the increase in PMs doesn’t make LND significantly more valuable.

On the contrary. It's extremely easy because without a feasible plan that the market likes, we have jack you know what. If you'd have said "potentially more valuable" then I could agree. Our potential needs to be realised through superb management execution. Anyone with mining experience knows full well that just having proven resources is not enough to see full value.

Excellent post IMHO - I do enjoy and benefit from the data focused discussion. Can I check with you on one thing? You said:

> At least £0.5m annual cash flow expected based on year 1 data.

So I get £417m. That's after corp tax, AISC costs taken out. Where my figures could be wrong might be in two places: For the Dec quarter, I've assumed Weighted Av Prices (A$) of 5,500 per oz AU and 12,500 per t Cu as we don't have that data yet, and a combined AISC of A$2155 across Au and Cu.

Thoughts and corrections welcomed! :-)

Working just fine here, though I did get through the Cloudflare check about half an hour ago. Perhaps try a private mode window or clearing cookies?

Cloudflare is a well known security system and is usually reliable. It is third party but if you walk into any large enterprise nowadays you might be shocked at the large number of third party security tools they need to deploy to protect their services.

Just watch out for CGT if buying in a GIA. Especially with the lowered limit.

Up to now, Putin has got more benefit from the threat of using tactical nukes in Ukraine than he would from actually using one. I don't see that changing any time soon.

Assuming we'd open massively higher solely due to PM price action is an interesting opinion. To benefit from the resources in the ground we actually need a clear plan. Serious buyers want to see a clear strategy and a plan for execution and funding of that strategy. Let's see what management say when trading resumes.

Speediemeadie helped me with this recently. Look for the thread "Holding Gold/Holding GGP/ IHT" on 28 Dec 2025 - his profile: https://www.lse.co.uk/profiles/speedymeadie/ Or look in my post history.

Yeah SD's reply was more in the vein of 'thanks for the suggestion, don't call me, I'll call you'... :-) Not in an impolite way though.