Member Info for TakingMyTime

@Spy
Yep, supply and demand is the key. I do believe there is sometimes short term manipulation on AIM -- but even that is mostly manipulating supply or demand via CFDs, shorts, etc. It doesn't matter, it always bows to supply and demand, and usually quickly.

@Bronson "Shaun 'Corporate' Day"

Yes, you've been telling us this for months. I, for one, don't appreciate it.

Perhaps you don't understand how markets work but it's primarily driven by supply and demand. "Demand" means buyers, and in volume. The more demand there is, the more buyers at higher volume, the higher the price will be.

If you convince one PI to put his ISA allowance into GGP, it's a grain of sand on the sea shore, it won't move the SP at all. If you convince 100, you then have £2 million invested, you might see a small uptick in the price.

If you convince one Institutional Investor to invest £2 million, you've accomplished as much for the SP as convincing 100 PIs to invest their entire ISA allowance -- and most would only do part of their ISA in a single share.

If you convince 10 IIs to invest £2 million (or 2 to do £10 million), you've triggered a significant demand event that might cause a temporary 3-5p jump in SP and probably a lasting 1-2p increase.

Who benefits from those SP increases? The PIs who are holding -- or, the PIs who have to cash out because of life events, or the PIs who have been holding and want to top slice.

Who benefits if SD convinces people to invest? PIs, mostly, at this point. Where does the greatest and fastest benefit come to those PIs? From convincing even a few IIs to invest on a large scale.

If SD is successful in targeting IIs, it is we, the shareholders, who benefit. So actually, your criticism of him is counterproductive, and if anyone is actually influenced by it, you are damaging us, the shareholders. So actually, I'd appreciate if you'd just drop this line of attack against our CEO. He's doing his job in trying to persuade IIs to invest. Good for him.

And yes, he's a 'corporate' guy. Amazing, considering he's running a corporation. If you don't want a corporate guy, don't buy shares on the market. Every company on AIM and in the FTSE is, incredibly enough, a corporation, and therefore being run by a 'corporate' guy.

You post some good stuff but this line of posting is nonsense.

@thelearner
I think there are many reasons to be optimistic about Scallywag. The wording of both the NCM and GGP releases about Juri, and they way they referenced Scallywag, led me to believe, and I still believe, that both companies are very, very optimistic about Scal.

Of course, they could be wrong but they both know more than me.

But until the drill results actually turn up significant mineralisation, no one knows that significant mineralisation is there. Optimism and knowing are different things, and those who claim they know deserve to be mocked unmercifully.

The only way anyone could know for sure what's at Scallywag is if they are the Almighty or a subterranean rodent.

Before the first Scal results were released, I called down someone for claiming he knew. Lots of people, I guess, believed him, but in my view, he was behaving more like a subterranean rodent than like the Almighty.

In the event, my view on his behaviour ended up looking pretty good.

Now, he's back, again claiming to "know" stuff. I really, really hope no one believes him this time. To be clear, I really do hope he's right about what's at Scallywag -- but he knows nothing, whatever he says.

Not all rats are under ground.

Don't get spiked in someone else's pump and dump game. Maybe Scal will be huge for us, I hope so. If it is, it's going to take a long, long time for that to fully materialise.

@JTB " I have a vicious and spiteful tongue. I have to work hard not to use it."

Don't we all. There's an ugly side to all of us, if we're honest about it. But some have the core decency to try to control such things, and others seem to revel in being nasty and go out of their way to do it.

It would be a pity if all we get for our money is a CEO who builds the company and makes it hugely profitable, wouldn't it?

I'm delighted with the presentation, because it means a few people on here will probably sell and I won't have to read their gloom and doom posts anymore. Their sells won't have much impact on the SP because people who have much to invest are likely to have done actual research on the actual business case here and not be driven by the shape of Mr Day's smile, the golden tones of his voice, or the magnificence of his oratory.

This man said nothing at all to diminish the outlook for this company. He said nothing that lessens expectations of what this deposit is going to become, nothing to suggest our non-Hav prospects are any worse than they were yesterday, nothing to suggest that the company's financial state is any worse than we thought.

The only thing he did is disappoint those who want the SP to be higher tomorrow. It's really a pity we don't have Lenigas as our CEO. HE certainly knows how to pump (and dump). He'd have made some of the "investors" here happy, I guess. Or we could tempt Bill Clinton out of retirement -- one of his political rivals said he could "charm the birds out of a tree."

Honestly. We're not looking for someone to lead a West End production, we're looking for someone to run a mining company. Mining ain't Broadway, and glamour, glitz, and glib speaking aren't required.

"but you aren't going to get a "tenbagger" here anymore."

It would be a shame if we had to settle for a 4 or 5 bagger from here but I suspect most of us would survive.

"Wouldn’t be surprised if SD was shorting as he’s done a fantastic job of destroying the share price thus far…"

Amazing that 11 people recommended this. I've reported it as defamatory, as it suggests SD is breaking the laws on insider trading and reporting of director transactions.

People need to get a grip.

I think if you want to own shares in an online presence you'd do better at Next. We're fortunate to have a choice. If you want to invest in an online retailer, Next is (in my opinion) a great option. If you are not convinced that the whole world is going online, and that an old-fashioned bricks and mortar retailer is a good way to go, again you have (in my opinion) a great choice.

Several important factors support the Primark model. First, a lot of people just want to see before they buy. Second, there's the sizing issue -- it's frustrating to buy something and have it not fit and have to return it online, when you could have just walked into the store and tried it on.

One that isn't often talked about is rising cyber-crime. These people are getting more and more creative and sophisticated. That not only hits companies when their systems are breached, it also makes less tech-savvy shoppers more and more nervous about buying online. Every headline about data breaches and ransomware attacks just builds that nervousness. I personally expect this trend to continue, and be positive for in-store sales.

I'm quite happy for Primark to stay off-line, personally.

13. Announce an agreement with Newmont to restart Ernest Giles.
14. Announce sale of Tasmanian assets.
15. Announce the agreed acquisition of Westgold Resources in a shares-only deal for 1.5 billion shares (or some such similar deal).
16. Announce a listing on ASX, TSX, or both.
17. TR1 showing anyone currently unknown having acquired 3%. Especially if it were a major miner other than NCM.

18-1000. Patience, patience, patience... and more patience.

9. Increased MRE.
10. PFS.
11. Announced progress of decline at a speed greater than expected.
12. Announcement that Bamps21 has been hired by GGP as lead geologist because his projections are turning out to be better than Callum's.

Ok, maybe not the last one. :)

No need to debate GDX. The criteria are clear. From VanEck:
"VanEck Vectors® Gold Miners ETF (GDX®) seeks to replicate as closely as possible, before fees and expenses, the price and yield performance of the NYSE Arca Gold Miners Index (GDMNTR), which is intended to track the overall performance of companies involved in the gold mining industry."

NYSE Arca Gold Miners Index (https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/data/NYSE_Arca_Gold_Miners_Index_Methodology.pdf)

"The Index includes Common stocks, ADRs, or GDRs of selected companies involved in the
mining for gold and silver ore and are listed for trading and electronically quoted on a
major stock market that is accessible by foreign investors. This specifically includes those
companies classified as being cross-listed, as an example those miners with both U.S.
(NYSE, NYSE American, NASDAQ) and Canadian (TSX) listings. The criteria of being
“electronically quoted” can be assumed to be met if the real-time market quotations and
trades for securities listed on a particular exchange are available via the data feeds of the
major market data vendors.
The Index Administrator has chosen not to specify the exact exchanges whose securities
are eligible for inclusion in the Index, but generally the exchanges in most developed
markets and major emerging markets are regarded as appropriate. The Index
Administrator will use their discretion to avoid those exchanges and markets that are
considered “frontier” in nature or alternatively, have major restrictions to foreign
ownership or investability."

I think we're ok on AIM, not certain.

"The universe will specifically include those companies that derive at least 50% of their
revenues from gold mining and related activities. There will be a 10% buffer built in so
that companies already existing in the index will only be removed from the universe and
index in the next review if their gold mining revenues fall below the 40% level."

We aren't eligible and won't be until we start producing. But....
"At the discretion of the Index Administrator, companies that have not yet
commenced production are also eligible for inclusion in the index, provided they do have
tangible revenues that are related to either the mining of gold or silver ore."

So, we could be eligible before production IF we have tangible revenues related to mining of gold or silver. It's not obvious that we will anytime in the next year.

Finally:
"In addition, as noted at the start of Section 6.1, the Index Administrator has the discretion
to include companies that do not meet the minimum levels for inclusion, if it determines
that by doing so it maintains the quality and/or character of the index."

If the Index Administrator thinks it needs us to maintain the quality/character of the index, they could include us anyway. That's a thin reed on which to lean. I do not expect to be added to GDX until a year from now, if then.

@JTB "I think the whole point of zoros' argument is that the MRE 4.2 million provides a plausible reason the share price is what it is. It by-passes theories about manipulation and proposes a return to 'fair value' - as much as it can be calculated - as a realistic explanation."

Ok, but that does not justify criticism of articles that say it is likely larger than that.

Furthermore, I don't see it as a plausible reason the SP is what it is. I have always said there is going to be short-term manipulation but supply and demand will win before long. We're definitely past the short term here and into medium term. This is where supply and demand is.

But that's not because of the MRE. It's because most of the market isn't paying attention (because of the AIM/gold explorer syndrome that makes most people just not even look), because many who do invest in AIM gold explorers are looking for 10 or 20 or 30 baggers and we don't have the risk to make that as likely. We're in the never-never land between the gamblers and the investors. The gamblers want to follow the companies that Lenigas likes to pump. They came here in droves chasing gold at Scallywag and left in droves when the initial results weren't what they wanted.

The investors like GGP if they look at it but most aren't going to until we start producing, or at least get closer to production. That's a lot of risk-averse PIs as well as a lot of IIs.

On top of that, our former CEO has just sold bucketloads of shares that the market has had to absorb (which was entirely his right and I'd have done it, too).

And all that, the departure of the gamblers and the selling by Gervaise, has zapped sentiment, and nothing has happened to really boost sentiment.

It has nothing to do with the MRE, because it's just an estimate, too. It's not even an asset on the books yet.

@JTB "As you say, the evidence is overwhelming that the resource is much bigger but - for the time being - only the 'official' amount in MRE exists for the purpose of valuation."

It depends on what you mean by "for the purpose of valuation".

If you mean for valuation in accounting terms, no, I don't believe an inferred MRE exists even for that.

If you mean for valuation in terms of what banks would consider in deciding to offer a loan, I'm not sure it exists for that.

If you mean for valuation in terms of what many Institutional Investors would consider, it doesn't exist for that.

If you mean for valuation in terms of what some other IIs would consider, yes, it is the 'official' amount in the MRE.

If you mean for valuation as far as what brokers expect the thing is actually going to be worth, they are going to look beyond that. And so do we. If I really thought this thing was only 3.4 Moz Au and a little bit of Cu, I wouldn't be holding at this price. Like every other share in the market, there's an element of forward-looking projection and uncertainty here. That is based on calculated risks and risk-reward ratios.

In my view, the inferred MRE that we have today probably doesn't justify much more than a 12p share price. Maybe not even that. There's still some small risk that something goes wrong, there's little economies of scale at that level of resource, and there's the delay of waiting for it to come out of the ground.

It's because it is (IMO) virtually locked on that the resource will be considerably larger that the risk-reward dynamic justifies a much higher SP. Sure, there's a risk that I (and all the brokers, and a bunch of PIs) have grossly misunderstood the intercepts, and we're only going to end up with a resource of 5 moz Au eq. I consider that risk almost nil -- and the reward, if I'm right, justifies a much higher SP than today's.

Perhaps if we could use something completely different to illustrate. I'm in IAG as well. It's not because of current revenue, it's because I expect revenue to take off once transatlantic routes open up. The MRE is roughly similar to IAG's current revenues. The expected resource of 10+ Moz is roughly similar to IAG's projected revenues once things open up again. The reward comes from taking the risk before it becomes certain. No one would say, "You can only talk about current revenues" when talking about IAG. Of course you have to consider what the future might look like. If you think it is bleak, you avoid, if you think it is bright you might want to buy.

@zoros
I'm going to be passing on my shares to my kids within the next month or two. When I do, I'll tell them why I think they should keep holding. I'll tell them there's an MRE (that last word is "Estimate", remember) that is inferred, not indicated, so no one knows even if it is accurate. But I'll also tell them about the latest drill results, and some other intercepts, that are outside the MRE, and tell them, "It's almost certainly much larger, I think it's probably over 10 moz, maybe a lot more than that, though of course no one knows yet. And that's why I've been holding and think you should, too."

If you think that's something that someone with credibility can't say, I'm not sure what to say.

There's nothing magical about an inferred MRE. But I can tell you this, if I thought it was only 3.4 Moz Au, I'd have sold out at 12p. Even the market is assuming it's more than that.

Share prices are always based on forward-looking guesses and probabilities. Not certainties. You're talking as if we can only talk about certainties. An inferred MRE isn't a certainty anyway. And that last phenomenal intercept is a certainty. We don't know exactly what it means for the resource but it does mean there's a lot more gold down there that isn't in the MRE. That's fact.

If you were talking to Joe Bass about Scal, I'd be right behind you. I called him down, though I'm not sure I was really popular for doing so, and it didn't stop him. I get your point that unsubstantiated ramping is detrimental, I agree entirely. I don't at all think the article we're talking about is in that category. Yes, it includes some educated speculation, but it doesn't claim as fact that which isn't fact.

"Let's all take a a deep breath....3.4Moz of gold and 160Kt of Cu. That is all anyone with any cred can go on presently..."

Sorry, but that's simply not right. The article, rightly, cited a drill intercept that would be absolutely phenomenal anywhere in the world -- and is outside that 3.4Moz envelope.

Anyone with a brain (and I include you, LOL), and who is paying attention at all, knows that the resource is going to be larger than the MRE. And no, it's not wrong for ALL the brokers, or for even the Daily Mail, to say that it is expected to be larger. If they give a precise amount and say it is definitely going to be that larger amount, they are idiots, but none of them did that. (Well, maybe Simply Wall Street did, I didn't even bother to read their latest.)

"Anyone with any cred" would look at the tiny portion of the resource inside the MRE, and some of the intercepts outside that, and say, "That MRE is only the beginning, it's going to be bigger. How much bigger, we don't know yet, but it's not reasonable to think that's all it is."

"laced with incorrect data"

The article is substantially correct. The 24 months is a conservative estimate which probably came from SD and which will probably be blown away.

I don't consider it a substantial error to say there's more than 4.2 moz given the intercepts (including one cited in the article) which have been released and are not inside the MRE space. Yes, the 4.2 came from the MRE and yes, it's a misreading of the MRE to say that but since he's not even referenced the Cu in the article, it's hardly a substantial error.

If you think that there's no more than 4.2 moz there, then you probably shouldn't be invested at these prices. Every broker is estimating much more than that and the drill intercepts announced back that up. Ford quoted broker estimates accurately and they are meaningless unless 4.2 moz is woefully underestimated. That's not an inaccuracy.

Did you criticise this article when it appeared in another venue, or only when it showed up in the Daily Fail? Is your negativity towards it affected by your perception of the rag in which it appeared this time, I wonder?

There IS one substantial inaccuracy in the article but it's based on a common misusage of the term "order of magnitude." Anyone who knows what the term actually means is likely to disregard it (and laugh quietly to themselves) rather than make an investment decision based on it.

I don't think the negativity is at all warranted. Unlike the Simply Wall Street nonsense which deserves every ounce of scorn we can muster.

@mickey, not off yet, but will be by end of summer, this time permanently.

Trying to get rid of me? :)

It's the same article by Ford we've seen earlier. Nice to see it get wider exposure, though.

Sometimes the "straight man" is funnier than the comedian.