Member Info for StarBright

The assertion that the whole sector is down IS borne out by examining the two VanEck etf's that track the miners, so I don't agree with the characterisation that the assertion is subjective. On a YTD basis GDX* (simplistically large cap miners, see below) has fallen by 9.69%, while GDXJ** (juniors, see below) has fallen by 21.4%. Historically both funds have tracked the price of gold (XAU on my chart) more closely than they are at present.

Here's a quick'n'dirty chart: https://thumbsnap.com/FuH5j2x1

*GDX - invests in equity securities issued by global producers of gold and silver with a high market capitalisation and trading liquidity
**GDXJ - invests in equity securities issued by global producers of gold and silver with predominantly a medium and small market capitalisation

You should be pleased that your buy was reported as a sell. It shows that you managed to buy below the mid-price quoted when your order was filled. That’s good news isn’t it? Would you have preferred to pay more in order to see your trade reported as a buy..?

Oh the irony...

Whilst confirmation that Loryser are out will be good news, I don't see it triggering a big rise in SP.

Loryser were "given" 10m shares back in 2019, with two years to sell them. The two years is up in mid-September.

10m isn't that many shares. If they had looked to work a sale at <10% average daily traded volume, starting at the beginning of May, they'd have shifted the whole lot by now.

Drilling and/or JV developments are the more likely catalysts for a re-rate.

This is an interesting debate that has been background for many years, but is now becoming mainstream. From time to time the business I ran would experience client (typically pension fund) requests for investment policies to be tilted toward ethical/green/social/whatever investments. We would always respond by showing how the proposed constraints limited the universe of available names, and thus reduced the diversification and expected returns on their portfolios. This we would illustrate in vol (for reduced diversification) and bps (for reduced returns). Almost without exception, pension fund trustees realised that they did not have a mandate to pursue worthy goals with other people's money - other than with those people's express permission. That to do so would require them to accept regulatory and funding risks beyond their appetites.

The danger now is that governments legitimise (even promote) such constraints, without proper understanding of the associated costs and - particularly - where these are borne. It's a recipe for further inefficiency in the allocation of capital and will make us all worse off in the long run. Companies with poor environmental (for example) processes/controls/records are naturally punished by investors for these failings. It is within the remit of governments to address negative externalities through taxation. Investment managers are skilled at understanding this and managing accordingly - witness how share prices react when tax changes are proposed.

The issues raised in your post are very real, and should concern us all.

Sorry - hit "Post" too early...

- the 6m version shows GDX and XAU as UNCH, with GDXJ losing 12% on both

Conclusion?
- there is material scope for the junior miners to regain lost ground, without the trigger of rising POG

I thought I'd take a quick'n'dirty look at how the correlations between the two mining ETF's (GDX - majors, GDXJ - juniors) and the POG (I used XAU) were faring. Here's a 5 year view. https://thumbsnap.com/WPBXMtmz

Takeaways:
- the LT correlations between the three are high (as you would expect)
- all the miners have been hammered - both absolute and relative to XAU - since Oct '20
- a big gap between GDX and GDXJ has opened up since March '21, with the juniors hit far harder

Well there was a guy who spent several years sitting in a bush/layby outside a UK oil drill site, taking photos of every vehicle that came in and out. Actually several such guys who then indulged in a twitter war of words accusing each other of ramping by posting fake photos etc. Actually very sad…

I’m not surprised that the proposed tailings transaction isn’t going ahead. Remember that these tailings were apparently carved out from Alien’s original EH acquisition back in 2019, ending up in a private company then run by some of Alien’s directors instead. Alien was proposing to pay that same company for the tailings. According to Max111 (this week at least*) "...acquiring the tailings will require a fund raise of well over £1M" Perhaps the related-party transaction disclosures potentially associated with such a placing were too difficult for those involved with questions over the (non)acquisition and subsequent beneficial ownership of the tailings already in the public domain? Easier all round for this to be dropped quietly if so.

Alien is an interesting company with some potentially valuable projects. As I have said previously I am less sanguine about its management and promoters - including those posting constantly here - so content to watch from the sidelines until there is meaningful change.

*Max111's previous position on funding for the tailings project: “…the cash was raised last year to budget for 6 maiden drilling programmes plus 3 resource drilling. Also to pay for the Nueva Andromeda permit and increase our stake in Hamersley to 90% and to have funds to acquire the Elizabeth Hill tailings. Because of this, it will now minimise future dilution if all goes to plan with the tailings.”

Wilson63 - NCYT insto shareholders have more than enough shares to call an EGM and propose an ordinary resolution to remove a director. Such a resolution then only requires 50% of those voting to be passed. When insto investors indicate to a company chairman that they are minded to pursue such a course of action, it is normal for the director concerned to go quietly.

That is the point sir_digby.

andyrp will be 100% correct. Institutional investors will be behind this.

Looks like he’s paid the price. Tough school sometimes, institutional investors…

At the risk of stating the obvious, market reaction to the PFS will be driven by the interaction of two factors:

1. The content of the PFS (ie what it actually says) not just by its arrival. If the PFS says that there is far more gold than anyone thought and it can be extracted cheaply with minimal environmental impact, the subsequent market/SP reaction MAY be very different than if the PFS is is less positive.

2.Market sentiment/expectations at the point the PFS arrives. Remember (always!) that markets are discounting mechanisms reflecting the future prospects of companies, The price at which a share trades is the aggregate view of market participants, some of whom will be optimistic about the company and some who are pessimistic etc. Very much as we see reflected on this ‘board daily.

Market reaction to the PFS will be driven by the interaction of these two factors at the point of delivery. If prevailing sentiment is poor and the PFS is fantastic then expect a major positive re-rate. If sentiment/expectation has built and the PFS disappoints, then expect a major correction. A good PFS against a background of positive expectations, or a poor PFS against a low expectations will lead to more muted SP action.

The important point here is that market expectations at the point of delivery are as important as the content of the PFS in shaping how the market/SP reacts. Major changes in SP - “re-rates” - occur when there is a sudden dislocation between expectations and reality. A recurring theme on LSE is inexperienced investors wailing when companies deliver positive news but their SP’s don’t rocket as expected. This is (nearly) always a result of those investors failure to consider and assess properly what is already “in the price”.

I agree that approval of a vanilla Bitcoin ETF will be an important moment. It's taking forever - I remember meeting the Winkelvoss twins (Google is your friend) back in 2016 when they were saying it was "imminent". A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then! My understanding is that whilst the operational issues have supposedly been ironed out, the SEC remains very reluctant to give approval, largely because it understands that such approval will be seen as an explicit endorsement. Also because of the ever present shadow of questionable exchanges and manipulation. Hard to prove, but also very hard to disprove... FWIW - I think they'll continue to drag their feet.

Ok - have taken a closer look at this.

DTR 5.1.2 states:

"A person must notify the issuer of the percentage of its voting rights he holds as shareholder or holds or is deemed to hold through his direct or indirect holding of financial instruments falling within ¦ DTR 5.3.1R (1) (or a combination of such holdings) if the percentage of those voting rights:

• (1) reaches, exceeds or falls below 3%, 4%, 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10% and each 1% threshold thereafter up to 100% (or in the case of a non-UK issuer on the basis of thresholds at 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 50% and 75%) as a result of an acquisition or disposal of shares or financial instruments falling within ¦ DTR 5.3.1 R…”

So if - as a Canadian incorporated business - OMI is defined as a "non-UK issuer", then the disclosure thresholds appear to be 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 50% and 75% for all investors.

Loryser had 10m shares. 5% of 188m is 9.4m. If my interpretation of the regs (above) is correct then we'll see no more notifications from them, unless (as I think our CEO said) they tell him they are out out of courtesy.

Perhaps more interesting is that the usual 3% +/- every subsequent 1% thresholds don't appear to apply to OMI.

That's far enough down this particular rabbit-hole....

Orosur itself says:

"Significant shareholder disclosures: As a Canadian incorporated business, statutory disclosure of significant shareholdings may be different and may not always ensure compliance with the requirements of AIM Rule 17. Shareholders are advised to consult the United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority's Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules Sourcebook ("DTR") when considering their requirements to disclose holdings to the Company.

Orosur is not subject to the UK City Code of Takeovers and Mergers and as such, the rights of its shareholders may be different from the rights of shareholders in a UK incorporated company."

That's not very clear.

Interesting point re different holdings disclosure requirements for TSX and LSE. I heard that comment from Brad also.

I will see if I can get a definitive answer as to which set of disclosure requirements apply and why. Does anyone here have a clear understanding of OMI's two listings? There are a number of different ways in which a company can be listed on multiple exchanges, and I've not been able to find an explanation of how OMI is structured in this regard.

Because it never happened?

Ok - sorry if I’ve misread. But I think the point is irrelevant.

Under discussion is whether the holdings disclosed for high street banks on the OMI website are nominee accounts (ie private investors) or those banks for their own books, as proposed by Coggy.

Do you think the holdings shown for Lloyds, HSBC and Barclays are nominee holdings (ie they don’t control the voting rights) or principal investments?

Hargreaves Lansdown PLC 36,837,011 19.55%
Newmont Mining Corporation 29,213,186 15.50%
Interactive Investor Trading 25,833,753 13.71%
Lloyds Banking Group 10,485,623 5.57%
HSBC Holdings PLC 9,721,362 5.16%
Barclays Bank 6,954,600 3.69%

I am 100% confident they are just nominee holdings for PI’s, for the reasons I have set out in my post linking the DTR sourcebook.