Member Info for StarBright

@GeordieShores - read the extract from the Takeover Code again...

The "highest price paid in the 12 months" refers only to the highest price paid BY THE BIDDER. If the bidder hasn't previously acquired any shares they are free to offer whatever they want.

I haven't bought any AVON shares previously. I am free to make a bid for the company at £12, £14, £25 whatever.

Bigun2 - whatever gave the you idea that the market expected 1Moz+….? The only broker note I’ve seen had 700k.

@Legalwolf - it is VERY hard to disentangle the complexity around the interests of the anticipated financing providers. For sure they are massive equity holders today, but the term sheet arrangements mean they have another spoon with which they get an early slurp at the soup. I can't work out which (existing holdings vs new interests via term sheet) will be more valuable to them overall. Insto investors are put off by related-party transactions (this is one) so it may well be having a negative impact. In truth there isn't much that ordinary ordinary shareholders can do about this. My guess is that we may have opportunities to participate in the fund-raise, but probably only in the straight equity portion not the convertibles etc.

Ordinary ordinary shareholders are going to suffer some dilution along the way for sure, but that always happens one way or another when project financing is needed. I am content to hold and see this play out.

Many would prefer to see the management team concentrate on delivery with the current project rather than doing deals. Look at the reasons people give for investing. Investors buy real assets not management teams, however "proven" their track records are.

540k Indicated
269k Inferred
809k Total

Super.

https://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/4561S_1-2021-11-15.pdf

Cora Gold Limited, the West African focused gold company, is pleased to announce an updated Mineral
Resource Estimate (‘MRE’) prepared by CSA Global (UK) Ltd in accordance with The JORC Code (2012 Edition)
for the Sanankoro Gold Project (‘Sanankoro’ or ‘the Project’) in Southern Mali. The updated MRE follows the
recently completed ~43,000m drilling campaign at Sanankoro which focussed on Mineral Resource growth
and upgrading existing Mineral Resources to higher confidence categories.
HIGHLIGHTS
? +200% increase in total ounces from maiden MRE in December 2019 and significant upgrade to
Indicated category using a 0.4g/t cut off and a US$1,800/oz optimised pit shell
? Pit constrained Mineral Resource Estimate of 21.9 million tonnes (‘t’) at 1.15 grams per tonne (‘g/t’)
gold (‘Au’) for a total of 809.3 thousand ounces (koz) of Au, including:
o 540.6 koz @ 1.33 g/t Au in the Indicated category
o 268.7 koz @ 0.90 g/t Au in the Inferred category
o All deposits remain open in all directions
o Maiden Mineral Resource at Zone C
? The Company’s strategy was to deliver open pit-able, free-digging oxide-focussed ounces for the ongoing Definitive Feasibility Study (‘DFS’) – this MRE supports that potential with:
o 67% of total ounces in the Indicated category
o 77% of the gold is in the oxide zone with a further 22% in the transitional zone
o Previous metallurgical testwork shows +94% recoveries (RNS dated 29 September 2020)
o Base of oxidation ranges from 60m to 207m deep
? MRE based on around 7.5km surface expression of the total 33 linear km strike length of the potential
mineralised zones identified in the 2018 Exploration Target of up to 2 Moz potential within 100 m of
surface at Sanankoro (SRK, 2018)
? There are multiple higher grade ore shoots within the deposits which offer the potential for higher
grade production in early years of mining
? Work on the DFS is gaining momentum following appointment of consultants and completion is
expected in H1 2022
Bert Monro, CEO of Cora, commented, “I am delighted with the updated Mineral Resource Estimate at
Sanankoro which has exceeded our expectations from the start of the drill programme and is a major step in
our development plan, which is focussed on delivering a DFS during H1 2022. Not only has the total Mineral
Resource been expanded by over 200% from our maiden Mineral Resource but there has also been an excellent
conversion from Inferred to Indicated Mineral Resources. Furthermore, nearly all of the MRE mineralisation is
in the oxide and transitional zones and is in line with the Company’s strategy of delivering an open pit, free
digging, high-recovery gold mine at Sanankoro.
“In September 2021 the Company signed a revised term sheet with Lionhead for US$25m Project Finance to
support the development of the Sanankoro Gold Project on completion of the DFS in 2022. This Mineral
Resource update is t

The point is only to illustrate that there are other actors - including the AP’s in this instance, but I suspect the spreadbet firms are material players also - buying, selling, borrowing and lending GGP shares. Their actions may be driven by matching needs rather than by trying to buy low and sell high.

AP’s will borrow shares if they need to complete baskets and prevailing liquidity lacks depth. They can buy the shares back at their leisure later. This makes them shorters, but not shorters motivated by some long-term need to manipulate price action. They aren’t working for Mr Big who - with the co-ordinated help of LSE, paid crews of posters here, the FCA, the MM’s etc - has supposedly been holding the price down for many months.

The narrative of plucky PI’s vs “the shorter” is incomplete, naive and misleading.

Where in my post does it say that ALL the borrowing is down to the activities of AP’s…?

GDXJ didn’t actually purchase any shares in the market on Friday. Rather the Authorised Participants (see list below) exchanged index-shaped baskets of shares for newly created GDXJ shares. On Friday those baskets contained 664,367 GGP shares which the AP’s had either bought (or borrowed…) in the market during the preceding days. So it is more correct to say that “GGP reported holding an additional 664,367 GGP shares on Friday”.

The AP’s are buyers, sellers and borrowers of GGP shares according to their basket needs. Increased demand/trading in GDXJ shares may have presented them with opportunities and challenges in recent days, resulting in them leaving more/deeper footprints in the marketplace. It is - for example - possible that AP’s have borrowed GGP shares to complete baskets for exchange. It’s also possible that they are behind the unusual “non-price forming trades” highlighted here in recent days.

GDXJ Authorised Participants:
Bluefin Europe L.L.p
Citigroup Global Markets
DRW Global Markets Ltd
Flow Traders B.V.
Goldenberg Hehmeyer LLP
Jane Street
Morgan Stanley & Co.
Old Mission Europe LLP
Société Générale S.A.
Virtu Financial

Given that the impact of Covid on a school age child is - in 99.9xx% of cases - no more serious than the impact of a common cold, does it matter? Should common colds be tested for and logged by regulated testers also?

We are going to have to accept the need to live with Covid, as we do with other coronaviruses.

Perhaps better to stick to the geology and mining posts Bamps...

Only the market cap matters. The number of shares is entirely irrelevant.

Don’t be Jen… https://youtu.be/Fkqg6HE888A

As ETF investors buy GDXJ (prompted by price action in gold etc), GDXJ's holdings of its index constituents (including GGP) have to increase proportionally to inflows. Basically - as GDXJ grows they will own more GGP.

The process behind this is interesting, as it is not actually GDXJ that buys the GGP shares in the market. GDXJ will be creating new GDXJ shares, which it will issue to Authorised Participants (AP's) in exchange for index-shaped baskets of shares. The AP's - typically marque name brokers - will be buying [or borrowing, but that is another story...] GGP shares in the market as part of the process of building these baskets. These purchases will likely be some of the larger tickets we are seeing going through. They (the AP's) will then sell the newly created GDXJ shares to ETF investors.

@petejh - thank you. Agreed on all points, although I think "High Range" might extend a little beyond USD650/oz for T1 properties with credible growth potential.

@sandgrounded - PVG's price history is actually quite a good fit with the Lassonde curve. Here's a quick'n'dirty chart, the [grey] price history goes back to 2011 and the green line is a 12m MA. https://ibb.co/L6Jmm35

Looks like they had an extended "orphan period" after discovery in 2013, but climbed eventually and have been bought out at a new ATH.

@PQ: I took a look at this, and agree with your numbers other than on one point.

NCM say “The total consideration offered values all of the outstanding common shares of Pretivm at approximately $2.8 billion" so (in your terms) the 100 is valued at USD2.8bn

Adjusting your calcs for this gives USD693/oz paid for the "in the ground" at Brucejack. On the same basis, the discrete portion of Hav covered by the recent PFS would be valued at USD1bn. 30% to GGP, 4.1bn shares, GBPUSD@1.36 gives 5.4pps

Applying the USD693/oz to the 4.2m oz Au eq in the MRE values Hav at USD2.9bn, 30% to GGP etc gives 15.7pps

At 10m oz Au eq, Hav would be valued at USD6.9bn, 30% to GGP etc gives 37.3pps

To add to your and Strudel’s point about Brucejack being in production: gold in the ground < gold that is already being mined successfully < gold that has already been mined

I don’t think it is right to say that number-crunching like this is premature. The comparison is instructive, perhaps especially given the similar AISC projections and the potential FMV exercise for the 5%. It is perhaps better to acknowledge that the Pretivm deal is based on “gold that is already being mined” by applying a risk% for Hav at this point. The market is evidently doing just that, but NCM committing cash as they are to the project tells us that the risk% is declining.

NCM's release references a 24.2% premium to 10-day VWAP. Remember that buyers always want to make premiums look small! PVG's 180MA is closer to CAD12, so the true premium being paid is more like 50%...

I'll accept the "word soup" criticism gracefully ;>

The underlying point is that this topic is far more complex than is typically recognised in discussion on this board, but it is wrong to default to assertions of"manipulation" and "dirty tricks" when your knowledge runs out.

One of the many benefits of Brexit is increased complexity in this area as the London Exchange was (essentially) forced to open up EU-based "venues" in order to continue to compete for order-flow from certain types of investor. Where an investment management firm has equity dealing desks in (say) Frankfurt and London, there are sometimes trades implemented across multiple portfolios that need to be directed via the appropriate venues. The implementation steps from a portfolio manager decision to "...take this holding down to 250bps across all the funds I run" have become far more onerous than they once were. Liquidity is not always evenly distributed so a primary broker might execute an aggregated trade on one exchange and then parcel it out using other trades to match the venue requirements of the clients underlying funds. It has become properly complex, and is ever-changing as regulation develops. I do not pretend to understand it all, but I know enough to recognise that the simplistic attempts here to answer "...is it a buy or sell?" are hopelessly doomed to failure. As are all attempts to judge the reasonableness of daily price moves through Buys vs Sells. It just isn't that simple, and even asking the questions (never mind posting unequivocal opinions as though they are facts...) reveals how little knowledge many posters engaged in this rabbit-hunt have.

The essential point here is that not all trades are simple buys and sells initiated by an end investors, and the methodology applied by LSE/ADVFN and others to attach Buy & Sell flags is good for some (many!) trades but not all. Posters looking to draw conclusions from LSE/ADVFEN Buy/Sell flags with a worldview based upon their experience as retail investors are always going to be disappointed. There is significant complexity beneath the surface - not least in primary dealer transactions - that simply does not lend itself to such simplistic analysis. The knee-jerk response seen daily here to view all of this as "manipulation" and "dirty tricks" is just a human reaction to misunderstood complexity...

TNCP flagged trades are: "...executed by reference to a price that is calculated over multiple time instances according to a given benchmark, including transactions executed by reference to a volume-weighted average price or a time-weighted average price".

We don't/can't who placed it or why, but essentially a market participant executed a trade aggregating parcels over a time period subject to some price constraints. It is flagged TNCP to ensure that it is recognised as not contributing to the price formation process, essentially because its pricing is stale when reported.