"There's still many abusive posters on this BB."
I know. I don't know why it is allowed. I have some people in my filter bin who actually sometimes provide good analysis / research, simply because I got tired of reading some of the things they wrote to other posters.
@Freddie "Ha ha yes tmt but i am very rarely abusive , perhaps thats why"
And thus your straw man is fully revealed in all his glory. People tend to get banned because they are abusive, not because they express contrary views. Codders got by expressing contrary views for quite a while but he was abusive often enough that I'm pretty sure that's what got him banned. If he had been consistently respectful to others in the way he presented his views, he'd probably still be here. And it's because he wasn't that a long thread rejoicing in his demise appeared. He offended a lot of people.
(Just figure out how to change your "very rarely" into "never" and you'll have accomplished something more important than investment success. ATB)
"Did you invest in ABF without researching competition?"
Depends on what you mean by "researching". Did I look at the general market to see who was out there, and their products, and whether market share was likely to increase, decrease, or stay stable? Of course.
Did I research whether BOO had good financials, investigate their management to figure out whether I trusted them to properly manage a company I part own, investigate whether I had ethical concerns with their current approach and direction, try to place a value on them and figure out whether I thought they were undervalued or overvalued? No, I didn't do any of that.
But of course, one of the reasons I liked ABF was that it isn't just Primark. It's Primark that makes me think there's solid growth opportunity, especially if they succeed in the US at all comparably to how they succeeded in Britain. But there's also the rest of the company, which continued to be profitable through lockdowns. With ABF you have diversification. I liked that.
So, I never really considered BOO as an investment. Not because I didn't think it might be profitable and perhaps even more profitable. I think they've done an excellent job of gaining market share, though I'm not persuaded that will continue to grow. I don't know that. But I don't know anything about the company beyond that, really. Never bothered to find out.
Hope that answers your question.
Why debate either place? If someone is posting lots of off-topic stuff over there, posting about Primark on Boo board, report him. Off-topic posting is against the site rules.
Or filter him if you don't want to see it.
Hi, spoon. No one knows, it's a total guess at this point.
Probably the biggest unknown is the byproduct impact. The copper (and other byproducts, if any) will be treated as a credit against the AISC. Since Cadia produces loads of Cu, and since the price of Cu is soaring, it has reduced Cadia's AISC to negative at times -- the copper revenue from Cadia is greater than the cost of production.
I don't expect Havieron to produce as much copper as Cadia. It's possible mining costs will be lower than Cadia simply because NCM is always getting better and better at what they do. There will be extra transport costs, etc, compared to Cadia simply because Havieron is much more remote. There is also the cost of transporting the ore to Telfer, that's going to be important.
There's also an unknown which either hasn't been decided or hasn't been reported -- toll processing fees. NCM owns the plant at Telfer and they won't be providing it for free. The fact that it is there means no massive CAPEX to build one, but the JV will be paying NCM a nice fee for processing the ore. That will also be included in the AISC.
To my way of thinking, it is likely to be somewhere between $400-800 / oz. There are too many unknowns to get more precise than that. NCM and GGP undoubtedly have a much better idea of some of these costs than I do, so I'm sure their range of expected AISC is much narrower, but I think my numbers are pretty good. If Cu prices keep soaring, that will drop.
Also, Bamps has talked about some of the other minerals present and the possibility of recovering some of them. I've heard from other sources that is not likely to be economical. If Bamps is right, though, that would reduce AISC further by providing further byproduct credits.
The PFS may give a little more info about some of this and help us narrow the range.
Ah, so this really isn't about ABF at all. Ok.
Don't really understand why people go posting on a share that they aren't invested and aren't thinking about investing, but whatever. Good luck to all investors in both shares. I don't see any reason to doubt my investment in ABF. Haven't researched Boo sufficiently to comment, but certainly they've had some success. It's not a company in which I wish to invest but that's not a comment about whether the case for investment is good or not.
I'm not sure they are really in competition with each other that much, they are mostly (IMO) targeting different market segments. Nor do I necessarily think it's an either/or investment proposition, I'm sure some people are happily invested in both companies.
"Sorry Spy I'm sure this is hurting you to read"
I'm sure he'll be ok, no need to apologise, LOL.
"but SP has been in a negative trend"
"and its not out yet."
Absolutely unproven and actually, sheer speculation.
Honestly, you guys going after DS for saying sentiment is through the floor need to look again. Sentiment may have picked up some on this board but generally, it's through the floor as evidenced by the SP. He's correct.
The thing is, if the value proposition hasn't changed (and it hasn't), and sentiment is through the floor, then you have a buying opportunity. Sentiment being through the floor is only a problem if you need to sell. Otherwise, hold or even buy more, if it fits your investment strategy.
No long term holder should care about sentiment. You care about value. Sentiment is the concern of traders, primarily. But even a LTH can take advantage of excess sentiment in either direction, so be honest with yourself about sentiment.
My father taught me about investing before I was a teenager. He told me never to invest based on what I hoped a company would be, or thought it should be, because I wasn't going to change it. He said you invest on what a company currently is. And you invest on a company's direction, but only if what they say matches what they do -- if those don't match, you run the other way.
I think you just need to accept that ABF / Primark is what it is. If you don't like it or think it is a bad business model in today's world, you need to sell your shares and invest somewhere else. You aren't going to change the company, and you aren't going to convince those of us who see it differently by repeating the same thing.
That's the beauty of markets in the modern world. We can decide what we think the future holds and invest accordingly, and someone who views it differently can invest according to how they see it.
Good luck to you.
"I don’t think banks would be lending until they see income flowing in."
Banks will lend against income or against an asset. Not both are required. If there is an asset to secure the debt, and a relatively assured future income, banks will lend -- though the financing rate may not be as favourable as if there were current income.
"Why has ii (institutional investors) not piled in"
I suggest you research investment strategies, especially contrarian or value investing. If you don't want to invest in that way, if you are more a growth or momentum investor, then I'd suggest that this is not the time for you to be investing in ABF.
I personally believe the most money is to be made on companies that the IIs are not piling in and are out of favour with the market, but where the company is strong and there is reason to believe in a bright future. But many people don't have the stomach for that because it can take a while, even if the evaluation of the company is right, for the market to catch up. And of course, you can get the evaluation of the company wrong. To succeed, you have to make sound evaluations of the companies and have the patience to wait for it to come good, and be willing to buy and hold even when the institutions aren't piling in.
If you wait until the institutions have piled in, you have much less upside, because when they pile in the SP rises.
Your questions here suggest you don't understand this kind of investing, which suggests this may not be the best investment for you. Good luck whatever you decide.
I liked your first version better, mate, much more entertaining!
If December's MRE is 10 moz, it will be time to bring out that rocket, except that rockets don't go fast enough. I'll be absolutely shocked (pleasantly) if it's more than 7 moz.
I don't think Alpala is a worthwhile comparison, because 1) this MRE is being done by someone who actually knows what they are doing 2) I suspect JORC is rather more demanding than the Ecuadorean equivalent.
Not sure why the criticism of RacingCyclist in this thread. His comment was pure fact. SD was not the CEO. He saw how it was done and was part of all decision-making in the building of that company but he was not deemed by them to be the right man for CEO at the time and he did not call the shots in building that company.
GGP is acting on the assumption that, having seen how it was done from inside and being right next to the top, he can duplicate it here. It's a reasonable assumption but it's not guaranteed and it would be foolish to pretend otherwise.
"Im expecting around 12 to 15Moz in the MRE in December issue. Do the maths."
Please don't expect that or encourage others to. There's not been sufficient infill drilling to justify that, and we're focused on growth drilling now.
Do you remember how much infill drilling they had to do to get to the initial MRE? Then, they did infill drilling which will take us from inferred to indicated. Where's that level of infill drilling been taking place outside the MRE envelope?
This MRE is unlikely to grow significantly until the exploration decline is finished and they can do the infill drilling at a significantly reduced cost from underground, IMO.
If December's update takes it to 6 moz that would be superb. Anything over 5 moz would get us into Tier 1, by many definitions.
12-15 moz is highly likely to happen, and IMO perhaps significantly more. But it's not happening in December.
Caveat: I've never invested in this kind of project before so my inexperience may be tripping me up here. But I don't think my research on this is lacking and I don't expect to be wrong on this one.
Thanks, Knocky. To be honest I'm not looking for the missing shares, because they have no impact on how much these shares will be worth to my kids in coming years. But if you are right (and I have no reason to doubt you), then we could pretty much put this line of inquiry to rest, for those for whom it matters. If someone has shares in a dark pool or hidden in some other way, it has no impact on how much gold and copper will come out of the ground over the coming years.
I agree with Jerry, by the way. Agreeing with Jerry is a habit that serves me well (especially when he says I'm a smart man, LOL, maybe he says that because I agree with him so much). The Bloomberg shareholder listings are compiled from various sources. They are generally accurate but not completely so. Some of the missing shares may simply be inaccuracies.
But the likely explanation is that Knocky is right and most or all of the missing shares are in SIPPs in amounts too small to show up on Bloomberg