Member Info for TakingMyTime

@DGR "@spy, @TMT - Not sure that that's even a problem."

I don't think Spy was saying it is a problem, but I sure wasn't. I'm in no hurry.

@Spy "I actually dont think we will see 30p again until the PFS or another MRE. What incentive is there to let this run away again? I reckon 27/28 tops until we get to September"

Probably right, unless another MRE comes before September, which it might. Your view matches mine on this.

"The market is telling us that this is not the case and some other reality is."

You always talk as if "the market" has some great omniscient capabilities. The market is people. It's PIs and IIs. The intelligence of PIs can be assessed by reading these boards. Some are stellar and some are idiots. II managers include people like Neil Woodford, who make incredibly brilliant and incredibly stupid decisions. They include others who only do that which is entirely safe (sometimes because they are cautious, sometimes because that is what their investors want) and so would never look at anything on AIM.

The market is full of idiots. There is probably much more money being managed / invested in the market by people (IIs and PIs) who don't have a clue than by those who know what they are doing. Among those who know what they are doing, there is much more being managed by people who would never touch GGP and so have never looked at it than by those who actually know anything about it.

The market IS telling us something. It's telling us that currently, those who would even consider GGP are valuing it, on average, at 20p. It's telling us nothing about why they are making that evaluation. It's telling us nothing about what the real value of the company is. It's just telling us that some combination of sentiment and fundamentals has convinced the average view of this to be 20p.

You've banged on about the new broker. "The market" doesn't know anything about why the new broker was appointed except for what the company has already said (which is virtually identical to what was said when Berenberg became a joint broker). "The market" does not have any particular insight into such things. Different individuals (PIs and II money managers) may have different guesses / interpretations as to whether there's a hidden reason but that is pure guesswork.

If the reason were a fundraising as you seem to think, Berenberg could have easily handled it. That's a piece of guesswork that most in "the market" would reject out of hand because it just doesn't add up for a company that already has Berenberg to add another broker for that reason.

You say you are just asking questions but you don't seem willing to consider the possibility that your question might have already been answered and that actually, your question just doesn't make any sense.

Nice post, Jerry, I agree. Though the 37m is historical, and could well have changed by now. Only Gervaise knows how much he intends to sell and whether he will continue to hold any shares or not. But if he's kept selling that well must be pretty close to dry by now and then supply and demand should drive this upwards.

"Well TMT you really are a confusing little soul aren’t you? Wasn’t it you who wrote only back on 10th May about GH “if he has sold any of his 40m is pure speculation”."

Yes, and since then Bloomberg reports a shareholding for him of less than 40m. Therefore the known facts have changed, and the highly likely explanation is that he sold some of those shares.

Circumstances change and it doesn't make one a "confusing little soul" to adjusts one's interpretation of the facts when new facts are known. You don't cover yourself in glory when you post such things. You aren't an idiot, you adjust your interpretation when you get new facts as well. Don't treat me like one. Thanks.

@redirons, you were on your high horse before I arrived, all because someone suggested GH might still be selling. That person was in fact probably right, or at least has been right sometime since 31 March, on a rather large scale, actually.

If you are going to flame someone for suggesting something MIGHT be happening, you can't be surprised when someone who has seen evidence that it HAS happened speaks up. Whether GH selling is a significant factor in the current SP is also supposition, but it's certainly a reasonable theory.

In my view, if the reason the SP is currently suppressed is because GH is selling, that's actually good news -- because if he's still selling, it must be close to the end, and once it's done, we'll rise.

"I don't want to be a bore, but there's a problem about choice as well. "

If this is true, you can't really object to my post. I was constrained by circumstance to write it. ;)

(Personally, I believe that, while our choices may be limited at times, we cannot so easily escape the responsibility/accountability for the decisions/choices we make.)

@Impecunious, as you said, for anyone in this for the medium to long term, it doesn't really matter what kind of manipulation it is. But all of the things you described might happen on AIM, some of them on other markets as well. If it's going to be a problem for someone, they shouldn't buy.

@Everyones
"Still doesnt make their games right does it" No, but if you expected it and it isn't hurting you, why complain?

"So turning this around what is the point in Researching when these MMS do completely the opposite of what they should do"
Your research should tell you they might do that, and tell you whether it is worth the investment if they do.

I came into this share knowing there would likely be short term manipulation many times over the course of my holding. I bought it because I was about 99% certain that either A) the company would be bought for a nice premium to my purchase price B) our share of Hav would be sold to NCM for enough to pay a nice special dividend which would likely be higher than my purchase price or C) we would hold and go to production which would generate value (either via dividends or higher SP) far in excess of my purchase price.

In any of those three scenarios, the activities of the MMs, rampers and derampers, and other SP manipulators in 2020, 2021, and 2022 are irrelevant. This thing is going to pay off sometime, big time. Let them manipulate all they want. It matters not at all to me. If someone is foolish enough to get sucked in by what they are doing, well, maybe it will make a buying opportunity for me, or a chance to take profits early, or whatever. If it creates opportunities, fine. If it doesn't, it simply doesn't matter to me.

@mush "You are right TMT but you are denying the basic British right to moan! The weather is a ruddy nightmare,"

Logically, Mush, those who were born in Britain have the right to moan about the weather, because they didn't choose it, they were born to it. It's people like me who chose to move to Britain (from a place with better weather, no less) who have no right to whinge!

"Redirons. Indeed I will not retract my remarks which made clear that this COULD be the case. I personally think it is a reasonable view given Gervaise's previous behaviour."

The last reported holding here for GH was 40 million shares, to which could be added 27 million options which he exercised after the date of that report. I have certain knowledge that he now holds less than 40 million shares in his own name. Perhaps he has transferred some of his shares to nominee accounts or to family members, or perhaps he has sold another 30 million shares. Either is possible, and either would be entirely legitimate actions for him to take.

It is not "laying the blame" at his feet to suggest he is or might be selling. It is not an accusation. It is not inflammatory. There is no reason he can't or shouldn't sell, there is no moral or legal objection to him doing so.

It's all a little tiring to read about this day in, day out.

The first rule of investing is DYOR. Part of Doing Your Own Research is to research the market in which the shares are traded. Know the rules, know the loopholes, know when company announcements will be made, know what has happened with other shares in that market.

If you Did Your Own Research, you would know that in the short term, shares on AIM can be manipulated. You would know that you shouldn't invest here if that's going to be a problem for you. You would know that if you are going to hold long term, and the long term investment case is solid, the manipulation doesn't really matter that much, but if you are in it for the shorter term, you've left yourself open to short term price movements which may be manipulated. If you chose to do that, it's a risk you chose to run.

Every time anyone on here, no matter who, whinges about manipulation, the MMs, etc, you are revealing that either you didn't DYOR before investing, or you did a poor job of research, or you are being childish and complaining about a risk that you took willingly. Either you knew about manipulation on AIM before investing, and so have no right to complain about it now, or you didn't know because you didn't do the work/research before investing.

There's a little more excuse for complaining if you actually didn't know about market manipulation on AIM. But the person responsible for your problem is still to be found in your mirror, because you should have done the research, and you should have known. It's not like it's a state secret that AIM shares can be manipulated.

If SP manipulation here is a problem for you, there's really only one answer -- it's your fault. You shouldn't have invested here if that's going to cause you problems. Sorry if that seems blunt but facts are facts.

" I wish some would understand how markets work and basic commercial understanding."

The irony, from a guy who wants Sandeep to just say in an investor presentation that it's more than 5 moz.

I suggest, mate, you research this industry and the way company announcements must be made to stay on the right side of the law, before saying anything more that makes you look dumber than you are.

@hydro "I recall reading an official JPM briefing note by John Normand, Chief Strategist "

Let's not forget that JPM is not a monolithic entity. This guy is the Head of Cross-Asset Fundamental Strategy. They have Chief Strategists for this and that and the other thing, and they all have their own opinions. Their equity strategists have views, their fixed income strategists have views, their commodities strategists have views, their currency strategists have views, etc, etc.

They are not trying to get things wrong. Most of their money is made in managing the funds of their clients. If they get it wrong more than they get it right, all their clients will get someone else to manage their funds. They are actively pursuing growth especially in the SMA sector (especially managing the funds of HNW and UHNW individuals) and they want to be able to show prospective clients a lot briefing notes that got it right, and not have wrong briefing notes sitting out there to undercut them.

"but as far as GGP are concerned Havieron alone is not going to be the making of GGP."

I totally disagree. Without Havieron we would struggle to get the financing to pay salaries and drill the other prospects.

Havieron is the company maker. SD wouldn't even be with us if we didn't have it. He wants to build a multi-asset, multi-mine company. Hav is the golden goose that is going to keep giving and giving to make all of that possible.

Money to acquire other assets? Hav is the provider. Money to drill 100 holes in Scal rather than 10? Hav is the bankroll. Money to drill deep, where needed? Hav mitigates the risk of spending that money.

Maybe I've misunderstood you but without Hav, we likely have nothing, and with it, doors open to possibilities everywhere. It's exactly what is meant by a company maker -- the discovery, the idea, the marketing ploy, whatever, that brings in sufficient money to move from a startup that hopes to get lucky to a successful business with opportunities to grow and build.

@Jerry
"One other point; do you think that GGP can use the money better than you can? I do and they have done so far."

That is the key question. Can the company use the money to increase the value of your shares by more than the value of the dividend?

If they use the money to drill holes, will that increase the value of the shares? Only if they find another economical-to-mine resource. Otherwise, divs would be better. If they use it to buy producing assets, will that be better than divs? It depends on the cost and the proceeds.

Yes, generally tax is more favourable for cap gains than for divs, more so than it used to be. Who knows what they'll do to us going forward, though.

@Tymers
I would probably only put 25K of the 100K into GGP because I'm significantly overweight in GGP and don't need to be.

I added in the mid-30s because I believed the value was substantially higher than that, enough higher to justify the risk. At the time I believed we were headed for 12 moz and in all probability higher. I was thinking it was probably between 15-20 moz with potential for more upside. Now, I realise I could be mistaken because this is not my area of expertise, but the latest drill results (just four holes) have convinced me the baseline is likely to be 15 moz, not 12, with much higher upside -- no idea how much higher.

So of course, I'd buy at 28p. I'd buy at 26 again. I'd buy at 40, if someone dropped 100K in my lap. I wouldn't buy at 50p right now but I wouldn't be surprised if I did later, as growth drilling results are reported. And we're still open at depth.

@Bamps, you've obviously been drawing us in all this time with all these positive posts! LOL. Just setting us up to undercut us, no doubt!

Next thing we know, you'll be saying Hav is only 100 moz.

"The banks have tried to reposition but have found it impossible to close their shorts without taking massive $20billion hit."

First, what banks have disclosed their positions?

Second, what reliable information do we have to that effect?

Third, what would you say if I told you that I have pretty reliable sources within several of the largest banks that have assured me they are fully positioned and ready for Basel 3, and have no exposure problems at all, nor do they think any of their peers are in trouble? What basis would you have for saying they've lied to me?

@Speedy "With the CU it is more than likely we will have a negative AISC."

I'd say that is extremely unlikely. Cost of transporting ore to Telfer. Toll processing fees which NCM will charge the JV. All the transportation costs for staff and any equipment, etc. No, we won't have a negative AISC. If we get below $500 it will be phenomenal.

"Accessing Havieron project deposits"? Er, no, not for a good while. Who wrote that headline?