Member Info for TakingMyTime

You're correct, deserttrader, that particular broker note was based on a 12.4 moz assumption and a 50% risk factor. The risk factor, I believe, was based on the risk of it not being mined (close to nil, I believe) and the risk that it would not reach 12.4 moz.

The second risk was not negligible at the time but after the last drill results underscoring the bulk mining case for the breccia, and expanding the SE zone, I think the risk is now significantly lower than 50%. In fact, I think there's a significant "risk" that 12.4 moz is going to look ridiculously low by the end of the year. But again, I know nothing.

Hi, napth. You are right that NCM calls the shots on updating the MRE, but if they are doing that very soon, it's pretty much a certainty that GGP knows, and therefore we are in a close period.

Since the purpose of that infill drilling was to get to an indicated value, and we're told the infill drilling is done, there's no compelling reason I can see for them to not go ahead and update with an indicated value (and presumably, also a larger inferred value). I don't really expect it next week but I will be a little surprised if that doesn't happen by sometime in August or sooner. But I'm guessing, I know nothing.

@zoros, very nice post. One quibble.

"Broker forecast of 33p by September (PFS). Based only on 4.2MozAuEq. (And everyone knows there is yet more to be declared)."

The broker forecasts are based on assumptions of what the MRE will become, not on what is currently known. They tell you what those assumptions are. The 4.2 moz is not close to big enough to justify a 33p share price.

@l-a "GGP is not in a closed period assuming it is not sitting on price sensitive information at present"

Accurate -- but they might indeed be sitting on price sensitive information. For instance, if an upgraded MRE is to be released soon. Wording of recent announcements makes me think this isn't an impossibility.

I am NOT saying there will be an upgraded MRE and NOT starting a rumour. I'm just saying it might be a mistake to assume GGP is not in a closed period right now.

That may be your opinion but you aren't allowed to make defamatory statements, especially when you state them as facts (rather than opinions).

of taking out the rubbish, they could take out the rubbish spreaders for a change.

Someone else to report, this time for defamatory comments.

It would be illegal for Shaun Day to be there to protect Newcrest's interests and illegal for the BOD to bring him in for that purpose. He is therefore violating rule 5.a. of the site rules. This comment will probably disappear because they will probably take down the entire thread.

@horn, this was funny.
"This is possibly the only time I will ever agree with TomE on here, but he's right, who gives a monkeys what GH is upto anymore... no one should lecture others on what to do with their money

I still think TomE you should apologise for your countless rude responses and virtiolic behaviour... it makes you come across as an unhinged lunatic at times..."

Why is it ok for you to lecture TomE on his behaviour that you consider inappropriate but not ok for people to comment on what they consider to be inappropriate behaviour by GH?

Just wondering. Is it because you are right and other people are wrong? Who sets the standard on who can lecture, and on what topic? You? Why are you more qualified than someone else to set that standard? Someone else like, say, me, or TomE, or Janus, or Paddy, or the blooming man in the moon?

(Just wait for someone to create a ManInTheMoon screen ID to start setting rules, LOL)

"Funny isnt it how everyone assumes that a corporate broker only operates by equity capital raises!"

Exactly. There's been no equity capital raise since H&P became our broker. Nor Berenberg. One cannot rule it out, of course. But obviously they do other things besides that and Berenberg could have easily handled that if it was the goal.

Hey, napth, what source do you think will give you an official confirmation that a PI who owns less than 3% has sold some shares, and when will they give you that official confirmation?

Multiple people have attested to seeing it directly on Bloomberg. You are right that it could be faked. If it were faked, and you were GH, and the fake was undercutting your credibility and the value of your largest asset, what would you do? I'd be on Twitter immediately, saying, "That's a fake, I hold all my shares still." He hasn't done that.

I know it isn't fake, just like others who have seen it. It might be a mistake or he might have transferred to family or something, but I am 100% certain that Bloomberg reported him at 40 million on 31 March. I wouldn't be surprised if he sold more after that, either. I couldn't blame him if he did, it's a huge and undiversified asset for him.

I don't know who is holding down the SP, the MMs (as some think) or one or more sellers, but I thank them. I didn't expect to get more shares at this price.

Hmm. I went back and checked. SP was over 25 when GH was replaced as CEO. Over the next six weeks it dropped to below 20p. That drop may well be attributable to GH selling.

Sorry, my prior post was inaccurate. Of course, no one knows what causes certain market behaviour and there can be many factors, but no one can say with certainty, as I did, that his selling didn't cause the drop. It probably contributed significantly to the drop.

Also, the BBG report showing him at 40 million was as of 31 March. It's possible he sold more after that as well. The price moved up somewhat after that point, but really not that much. It's possible he is still feeding shares into the market now, for that matter.

@Dave, but I was responding to a comment that attributed the price drop to two factors, one of which was the former CEO selling.

If he had attributed it (partially, anyway) to the former CEO leaving, he may well have had a point. But GH selling, which happened after he left, was not a significant factor in the price drop.

To be clear, the former CEO selling was not a major factor in the price drop. The price dropped while he was still the CEO. His selling may have helped to keep the price low but it did not drive the drop.

Not sure I understand your point, Tymers. Surely the ultimate value of the product is pretty important to our investment. To dabble in a little reductio ad absurdum, if POG drops to $50/oz, this mine is probably not going to be economical to mine. If POG doubles, it means that even lower grades that aren't economical today become economical to mine.

I'm pretty sure that grade and projected future POG are of comparable importance in the decision to mine, and the profitability of the mine (and thus the value of our investment) once that decision is made. Thus, discussions about the future POG surely have their place in discussing the investment case for GGP.

Am I missing part of your point? I'm not arguing with you on the importance of grade, only that I can't see how the POG could be considered irrelevant.

Well, according to SAS I'm going to need to find some other beautiful person to save, so definitely NOT chaps only. The more friends you bring, Toptips, the better!

(Sadly, I'm unlikely to make it, actually, but that does make pretend fights easier.)

@SAS "Tiggerman & TMT keeping out the way with their pretend fight"

I'm definitely taking that as a compliment.

LOL, Jambo, you were wrong. He wasn't selling at the time. He waited until he left to sell.

So, I said I was done with this topic, but since some seem to want to attack the messenger by saying Gervaise had every right to sell his shares....

The original post on this thread said the following:
"4. GH had every legal / moral / ethical right to sell some or all of his shares. It was part of his compensation and no one can legitimately criticise him for selling."

I haven't seen anyone on this thread criticise Gervaise Heddle for selling. So a bunch of you are arguing a straw man. He had every right to sell, and no one said otherwise. Criticise me for what I said, sure, but not for what I didn't say.

My mirror works fine. It shows me someone who has never done a pump and dump. I've taken profit at times but never whilst publicly encouraging others, who may be less fortunate than me, to hold or buy. I have other things on my conscience but not that one.

Nor does any of this mean I'm not grateful for what Gervaise did for us PIs. I'm glad he profited and I wish he'd been able to sell some of those before the price dropped. He deserved it. I just have to balance that gratitude with the fact that, with what I know now, I can't really view him as a man of integrity. Maybe that doesn't matter to some of you, and that's your decision. It does to me. It makes me less willing to invest in his next endeavour. In AIM, you have to trust your BOD. Now, I have a question whether I'd trust him.

@zoros "It is a strange part of human psychology to diss someone for their success,"

If you think his success is the issue, you aren't reading very closely. I'm glad he is able to sell and make lots of money, and has earned it.

But that said, I'm done with the subject. It has little to do with the investment case for GGP.