Member Info for StarBright

Yes. See timings below, from a post I made a week or two ago.

- The reference date is 30/11/21, so changes will be based upon constituent / aspirant MCaps at that date.
- Changes will be announced on 10/12, and implemented on 17/12
- As GDXJ (or technically the underlying index MVGDX) is cap-weighted, the principal impact(s) will be through “reconstitution” not “rebalancing” (see below)
- Rebalancing (the process through which index weights are set) effectively occurs daily in a cap-weighted index / ETF
- Reconstitution is the diarised process through which names are added to or removed from the index / ETF
- GGP is presently the 36th (of 100) largest index component so won’t be removed from the index
- Reconstitutions only impact existing index weights when large new constituents are added (for example when TSLA joined SPX everything else had to give up a small % to make room). I can’t see an obvious large addition this time around, please correct me if I’m wrong!
- The SP impact for GGP last December was unique as it was the addition of GGP to the index. That’s not happening again, so…
- It’s highly unlikely that the forthcoming rebalancing/reconstitution process will have any impact upon the SP of GGP
- I don’t see any particular opportunities for the AP’s to “interfere” with GGP price-action in the run-up to the rebalance date

£5m CLN is material in proportion to MCap. CLN doesn't necessarily mean death spiral (I assume that's what you meant Nate-PI..?) financing though. Convertibles aren't always bad. It's hard to assess the merits of all of this without further details on the terms.

A CLASSIC example of tabloid headline mis-direction.

Yes, more than 50k cases were reported.

Yes, Omicron is spreading.

BUT… only TEN of the 50k new cases have been identified as Omicron.

The mirror (and likely HKK…) would like you to believe that Omicron is behind the HUGE number of cases. That’s why they slip the little word “as” into the headline, inviting you to connect cause and effect. But Omicron ISN’T behind the 50k cases.

You weren’t stupid enough to fall for it though were you….?

High is in then! Ding ding…

;>

The price of GDXJ (specifically the UCITS version that is likely the fund held by UK-based PI's) has fallen in recent sessions. As posters have pointed out, it appears to have fallen by more than might be expected by someone "eyeballing" price movements in the underlying holdings. Why is this?

There are two "less than obvious" factors at work here:

1. GDXJ is unhedged, so non-USD-centric holders are exposed to FX movements. For GBP-centric investors in GDXJ, the recent strengthening of the USD has acted as a -ve drag on GBP performance.

2. As we've seen a move toward "risk off", the GDXJ fund(s) have been sold by holders - depressing their price such that they have (at times) traded at a discount to their NAV. This means that a share in the fund trades for less than the value of the fund holdings.

I hope this explains what you've seen @Luckytrader321.

For anyone wanting to delve deeper... When an ETF trades below its NAV, the "Authorised Participants" (AP's) can exchange ETF shares bought in the market for index-shaped baskets of shares from the ETF sponsors. In very simple terms - if GDXJ falls by 5% and its underlying holdings have only fallen by 2%, an AP can buy $95k of GDXJ in the market and exchange it for a basket of shares worth $98k thus realising a $3k profit. In the process of buying the GDXJ shares they will - of course - drive the price upwards, closing the discount to NAV.

@JiffyBag - the Van Eck holding will have increased since the beginning of October as the the two GDXJ ETF's it sponsors have attracted buyers. In simple terms when investors allocate funds to GDXJ, new GDXJ shares are created to meet demand. Those new GDXJ shares are exchanged for index-shaped baskets of assets - which will include GGP shares - bought in the market by the ETF's "Authorised Participants". The GDXJ ETF's have been growing, and it seems likely that some of the trading activity commented on here is driven by the AP's.

Of course any question constructed with "Can you rule out...?" provides the lowest possible chance of an answer you don't want. Linguistics at work my friends...

I'm hoping that Omicron is VERY infectious and VERY mild. Then it can take fire around the world training everyone's immune systems to deal with the more dangerous variants. Like a self-replicating, self-distributing vaccine, only one that doesn't take global pharma corps months to develop. Wouldn't that be a wonderful outcome...?

You can't "rule it out" can you...?

Sure / thanks. The text in the RNS that caught my eye was that below, which suggests that they've looked at the mining practicalities of operating at 3Mtpa. I recall SD saying something about this in one of the interviews he gave. There are in fact 7 mentions of 3Mtpa if the GGP RNS, it's not a one-off. My working assumption is that 3Mtpa is the targeted rate, even if 2Mtpa was used for the PFS. YMMV of course...

"The Stage 1 Study assessed mining production methods including SLOS with mining rates of 2Mtpa to 3Mtpa and caving options up to 6Mtpa. Surface infrastructure studies were focused on the transportation of ore back to the Telfer processing plant with a range of options considered in early-stage evaluations including conveyor, rail, pipeline and truck haulage, with the latter adopted for the Ore Reserve case. Processing studies evaluated a modified Telfer process plant to accommodate the Havieron ore.

The initial Ore Reserve case is based on a ~2Mtpa production rate from SLOS mining method limited to the Indicated Mineral Resources within the South East Crescent Zone. The Stage 1 Study demonstrates the potential to expand the Project and increase the mining rate to 3Mtpa or more based on the upgrading of the current Inferred Mineral Resources and additional potential Mineral Resource growth from immediately below the South East Crescent Zone as seen in recent drill results (refer to Section titled Potential Exploration Growth for a summary of drill results)."

Yes - and I think this is worthy of attention. The 3Mtpa figure is in the GGP "Growth Update" deck as well. Reading between the lines I wonder whether this was a point of contention between the JV partners. 3Mtpa would have materially improved the project's declared IRR, which I suspect is more important to GGP at this point than it is to NCM.

So true, @troublesome.

@asher7 - they are looking to raise £3.7m from “institutions”, £0.3m from directors/staff and an additional up to £1m from the PB offer. Total of “up to” £5m.

Errrrr…..

Placing at 25p = 34.2% discount.

I don't think everyone has your history and depth of knowledge zoros. For example the poster earlier today who asked: "Could yesterday's spike be the MM's forward book running for the GDXJ re rate, only a thought, would be nice to finish the day blue.”

Some observations on the frequently mentioned “GDXJ rebalancing” due in December:

- The reference date is 30/11/21, so changes will be based upon constituent / aspirant MCaps at that date (tomorrow)
- Changes will be announced on 10/12, and implemented on 17/12
- As GDXJ (or technically the underlying index MVGDX) is cap-weighted, the principal impact(s) will be through “reconstitution” not “rebalancing” (see below)
- Rebalancing (the process through which index weights are set) effectively occurs daily in a cap-weighted index / ETF
- Reconstitution is the diarised process through which names are added to or removed from the index / ETF
- GGP is presently the 36th (of 100) largest index component so - barring a catastrophe tomorrow! - won’t be removed from the index
- Reconstitutions only impact existing index weights when large new constituents are added (for example when TSLA joined SPX everything else had to give up a small % to make room). I can’t see an obvious large addition this time around, please correct me if I’m wrong!
- The SP impact for GGP last December was unique as it was the addition of GGP to the index. That’s not happening again, so…
- It’s highly unlikely that the forthcoming rebalancing/reconstitution process will have any impact upon the SP of GGP
- I don’t see any particular opportunities for the AP’s to “interfere” with GGP price-action in the run-up to the rebalance date

Questions/comments welcomed…

@HKK - Omicron may or may not prove to be a major problem in the development of the Covid pandemic - we just don't know yet. I agree that we should be concerned. But to state unequivocally here that we should expect hospitalisations to soar by 330% globally is highly irresponsible. Even the tabloid link you've provided as tenuous support for your conjecture refers only to one province in SA.

You seem to be posting every negative article/angle you can find. Why?

@WBAFC: We don't yet know. We'll have to wait and see if any material holdings are disclosed. But large trade size doesn't necessarily mean an II (in the sense that phrase is typically used on LSE). There are plenty of other market participants (spreadbet firms, HNWI's, arb desks etc) who might have been behind the 300k purchase.

Price action does look a little febrile compared to disclosed trades today and yesterday. I wouldn't be surprised to see some LRGS prints later today.

A thoughtful comment from an FT contributor:

"'Material' could be a 10-20% fall vs infection. With Delta the vaccine’s effectiveness vs symptomatic infection fell from c.95% at week 2 to c.55% after 6 months. However, against hospitalisation it stayed at c.90-95% throughout.

We don’t know and need the results, however I suspect the same will happen here. Omicron will see a material fall in protection vs infection because the initial antibodies will not be as efficient. However, the vaccines will still buy time for your full immune system to kick in through T cells etc thereby providing high protection from hospitalisation, particularly after a booster.

Summary: Governments have an incentive to play Omicrom down, Moderna has an incentive to play it up. My bet is Omicrom is somewhere in the middle."

Good point @Porky9..! ;)

As "Massive Monday" didn't quite work out, I was counting on "Take-off Tuesday". Not sure my investment horizon extends as far as "Windfall Wednesday"...

We all know this is going to £54. Although I am perturbed by the absence of a thread entitled "Take-off Tuesday: the climb to £54 gathers pace" or similar....