Member Info for TakingMyTime

@Spy "TMT is correct in his statement also. but it wont get us anywhere, its historical now and we cant change it."

Mostly true, Spy, and it's why I finished by talking about the drill results and the buying opportunity. But I do think it's well past time to put the hagiographical descriptions of Gervaise to rest, and thought it was worthwhile to point it out.

@WF, I said I'm willing to listen to an explanation from GH. The facts are out now and he's not come out with any explanation. He hasn't given one, and he doesn't have to. But if he wants to retain respect, he needs to come up with a good explanation of why he was tweeting about looking forward to the short squeeze whilst he was selling shares.

He owes no one any explanation for why he sold shares. They were his, legitimately earned.

@pjbtrading "Ark at me, as if GH, or anyone for that matter, cares for me giving him the benefit of the doubt :-)"

LOL, can we change "me" in this comment to "us"?

1. Someone asked why Bottle Rocket was left alone on the broadcast, and suggested a reason. That reason was mistaken. At least part of the reason BR was left alone was because as it turned out, I couldn't join him.

2. The facts are clear on GH selling. As of 31 March, he held 40 million, down 34 million. In early April he exercised options for 18 million. He may have continued to sell. If he has not, he holds 58 million shares. If he's continued selling, we'll find out later how much.

3. GH's selling did not drive the drop in price from 38p. If he had sold while he was CEO or a board member, it would have been in an RNS. These sells are recent and have helped to hold the SP down recently but they did not drive the SP fall. That's not his fault. These sales came after 1 February (the RNS on that date proves it) when he paid 22.4p. You can blame GH for holding the price down since mid February, perhaps, but not for the fall.

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.

5. This is my opinion only: ethically, a small purchase, publicly declared, just before a secretive large divestiture, is dubious. It's a manipulative pump followed by a dump, and when seen in conjunction with GH's tweets, especially the one about the short squeeze, he's lost my respect. He's a multimillionaire and in the attempt to squeeze a few more pounds out of his shares, he's potentially damaged small private investors who trusted him. I can't respect that. Maybe there's an explanation, I'd be willing to listen to one if it is forthcoming, but it's hard to see how he could really be trusted in future. Sell all you want but don't pump whilst doing so, to the detriment of small shareholders. He's probably gained a few hundred thousand pounds with that game, but lost something more valuable, in my opinion.

6. The new drill results are few, which is disappointing, but superb. I've been of the view this was likely at least 15 moz. I think now 20 moz at a minimum. Anyone who is investing for the long term value, rather than doing short term trading, has to be very happy with those four new holes. Really doesn't matter who is buying, who is selling, who is building a stake. More gold and copper means more value for your shares, if you just hold them.

7. For those who wanted to buy on a dip, it was a golden day. Thanks to the market for being stupid, I appreciate it.

It's already Friday where you all are. Hope you have a great day and weekend.

I'd suggest if you are investing in ABF for the current dividend, you are doing it wrong. You should only be investing here if you are looking for a safe and steady company with some definite growth potential. If you want dividends, find a different company.

My initial response: meh. Only four new holes. Wake me up when you have something to report.

My Don't. Be. Stupid. response: A) We're bulk mining the northern breccia, which is extended. B) WE'VE EXTENDED THE SE CRESCENT! C) We're still open in every direction we were open in.

My market-expectation response: The market will probably be stupid, or at least enough traders will be that they'll define what the market is for GGP. Potential buying opportunities in the morning.

But I know nothing.

@Jerry "TmT. I am not sure that NC would be overly pleased to find out that ggp was the consolidator in the Paterson. I think that they would think that is their job."

Perhaps. But it would simplify things if you have a hit that straddles the Hav / ARV line to have only two owners, not 3. And it would be complicated if half of it were 100% owned and half 70% owned, and simpler if it were all 70-30 or 75-25.

We're talking complete hypotheticals, of course. None of this is at all likely, in my view.

@spudimminent "Could you please confirm and maybe TMT suggest what Newcrest would think were we to attempt a tie-in or indeed a buy out of ARV"

I don't have a clue what they would think. I can only guess that NCM would be quite happy if an ARV target hit and it was controlled by a company with which they have such good relations.

Not sure how we'd buy ARV, though. We could sell part of Hav to someone like Franco Nevada, we know NCM wouldn't like that. I'd guess if we bought ARV it would be entirely an equity transaction, basically we'd give GGP shares for ARV shares. We'd almost certainly have to list on the Aussie exchange.

Effectively we'd be selling part of Hav, one way or another. Do we want to do that for ARV? Maybe. It certainly would simplify things if we have a cross-border hit with them. I'd guess "simplify" would be appealing to NCM as well.

Total speculation. I think we're looking for acquisitions but not sure ARV is the right target.

@Janus "I know what I’m doing here and I’ll be buying more tomorrow. As I have done on previous results."

I am not smart enough to know what the SP will do tomorrow but I also have cleared some funds and am prepared to buy if it drops at some point in the day. I mostly expect it will, based on past history.

I tell myself this would be a short term trade rather than a long term increase in my core holding. My past history suggests that every short term trade I've made in GGP ends up getting added to my core holding and not sold. :)

Trending towards a 5 star rating, too. Given the history, that's great news. If that holds for the year, the news reports will have to be very positive, which can only help.

This remains a long term hold.

@panama, thank you for the very nice post. Positive memories are invaluable.

I'm in a good place, don't worry about me. When God closes a door, He opens a window. I think I've found the right window for moving forward, that's all. I'm in the process of collecting advice from trusted advisors as to that future path. When/if it becomes clear, I'll let my friends know. ATB to you and your family.

I see it, Greggie.

@Bamps. "Have you got to isolate when you come back?"
Very sneaky, trying to find out where I am! I think just because of that I'll stay until all travel restrictions from everywhere are lifted!

I can't imagine I'll be as active here as I was at some points in the past. My world is different now, in a lot of ways, and still changing.

@chester
"My hope is that Havieron continues to expand in size and it becomes to expensive for Newcrest to buy it."

My hope is that it expands in size clear into the neighbour's territory, LOL. But it will never be "too expensive" for NCM to buy. If they are borrowing to buy a mega asset, everyone knows they are world leaders in developing those assets. In the last year they had no problem at all borrowing loads of money to restructure their debt. The American bond funds will knock themselves out to throw money at NCM if they are doing a leveraged acquisition of a mega-Tier1.

My hope is that it gets so big that NCM shrugs, and says, "Well, it would be nice to have it all but our share is Tier1 already, so no need to be greedy." Hopefully they'd be content with 75% of 40 moz + Cu. :)

@chester "Could Newcrest come up with $2b or $2.5b to buy just Havieron ?"

Easily. They would have no trouble tapping the debt markets for that kind of money to buy a Tier1 asset.

Whether they would decide it is worth it or not is quite another question.

I worry a little bit about people investing here on the assumption that NCM (or someone else) is going to buy Hav or GGP as a whole. They've said nothing to indicate they will. As a general rule, one should avoid investing based on assumptions about what other companies are going to do unless they've said something to give strong indications.

It's one thing to say you hope there's going to be a buyout. It's another thing to assume there will be.

Hi, Bamps, yes, still abroad for a couple more weeks, probably.

I still wouldn't rule out a small placing or rights issue, but debt financing to bridge to the sale of the 5% is certainly possible, if needed.

GH always said he wanted to use debt raising, not equity, but he doesn't call the shots anymore. I don't expect major equity raising but am ready for a small rights issue.

@Bamps FS vs PFS, you are correct, my mistake.

@Dave, I doubt anyone lends to us on our track record as an explorer. The evidence that one great find makes an explorer likely to get another is about as thin as the evidence that I'm Donald Trump and you are Kim Jong-un. Banks lend on two things -- proven reliable income, or proven reliable assets. Fortunately, by the time we need money, we should have a sufficiently proven reliable asset at Hav. But even if we have some very good looking drill results elsewhere, I wouldn't expect banks to lend to us on that basis. They'll want a loan secured by our share of Hav. All IMO, of course.

I agree with GGPT&T that we are unlikely to sell Hav.

Sandeep has said many times that NCM has a clear path to 75%. As an NCM investor, after all the times he's said that, I'd be shocked and disappointed if they didn't take advantage of that clear path.

That's also an implicit acknowledgement that they don't have a clear path beyond that, right? In my view, as I've stated before, if they wanted to pay the necessary amount to 100% own Hav, or to take out GGP entirely, the time to do that was last summer, or at the least, before they provided Hav financing.

They've provided sufficient financing to get us to the PFS, but not really beyond that.

Nothing is certain but everything is signaling that they intend to exercise their option and acquire the 5% at FMV.

No one knows how much that will be, though the recent Tropicana deal sets a nice market for the FMV of gold in the ground in a good jurisdiction. I don't expect it to be that high since we aren't in production but hopefully that pulls it higher than it would have been.

I do expect it to be sufficient to cover further development of Hav plus general expenses and exploration expenses for some time. It WON'T be enough to cover our share of drilling costs if we hit big somewhere in PRE and need to stick lots of holes in the ground, and then pay our share of developing a mine. We'll probably need further financing to develop a mine at Goliath or somewhere else. But that's a great problem to have.

For anyone who considers themselves a holder for the long term, Tymers is asking a good question. It's a question that had no good answers for SXX, with drastic consequences. In my view, the answer for GGP has come out of Sandeep's mouth multiple times. As a back up, we know from the Solgold story that Franco Nevada likes to come up with finance, too. That's a good option if NCM decides not to take the 5%. Bank financing would most likely be available as well.

I'd be of the view that any IIs that are going to bail on coal would have likely done so already, and therefore any of that is already baked into the current Evraz SP. Once the demerger goes through, you'll have a steel company and a coal company. The steel company should be able to clear some of those ESG constraints and see some upside as a result.

The coal company will certainly have ESG constraints but perhaps not anymore than Evraz as a whole does today. So sure, the fact that many IIs will give it a miss will have its impact, but that impact is already felt, so you'll be starting out with the "a bunch of IIs won't touch this" discount on the SP.

I'll be happy to hold both entities.

You are right about coal being out of favour but that doesn't mean it won't make money and produce dividends.

It's all well and good for spoiled rich Europeans and Americans to bleat on about oil and coal and expensive changes, but the third world needs cheap energy to get a decent standard of living, and I for one don't care too much about the IIs and the politics of it. My sense of morality is not based on what the press and dear Greta decide is moral, and I'm happy to own coal. So it's never bothered me to own Evraz, and it won't bother me to own both demerged companies.

But I agree that it is a good political move by the company and I hope it goes through.

Hi, Gavster. Posting less but still holding, for sure. And still reading here for sure, too.

@Qzqz, I don't mind being in coal or oil. I think it has a long future ahead. But I think it is good to separate out that which is likely to be politically targeted, so that those investors who want to take that risk can do so, and not have the main company held back by it.