Member Info for TakingMyTime

I don't expect the debt pile to have much impact on dividends. First, debt can be rolled over into new bonds at extremely low/attractive rates. Second, keeping dividends down to pay off debt is just not how Russian miners roll. I hope we'll see some moderate debt reduction but I don't expect it to significantly impact the dividend.

Historically, the company has paid very high dividends and I'd mostly expect this to continue. I'm not sure it's best, I'd rather see lower debt, but it is what it is. If we hit 700-750p I'll probably cash out. I like the company but it's not really core to my long term strategy, I bought it as a value play and I'll not be sure of the value proposition if we get that high.

So I'm happy with higher dividends and less debt reduction, if that's what happens. If it were a long-term play for me, I'd have a stronger preference for reducing the gearing.

This will always be a volatile share with relatively high dividends, I expect.

TMT emerges, sees the SP, wonders if he should try to post something to calm the restless.

Looks around, sees Bamps is still here, shrugs, says, "It's covered, nobody needs me here right now, what could I add to that anyway?" and goes back to sleep (with all his GGP shares tucked safely under his pillow, of course).

Life is busy, I'm having a great time, no time to post here or even watch the SP, hardly. Which seems to have been a lucky thing recently, LOL.

I'm still holding, and bought more. I don't understand what is going on with the SP, seems absolutely insane to me. But no complaints. Unless the gold all washed across the boundary into the neighbour's tenement during the recent storm down there, seems to me we're in great shape here. Open at depth, open in several directions, rushing towards production.

If anyone has been talking about anything important, I've missed it.

I was very high on the Joanna Place appointment, said so at the time. I agree.

" ‘We have built multi storey buildings which met all the fire safety rules and regulations in place at the time’ The evidence already given at the Grenfell Inquiry has clearly shown this not to be true."

What evidence given at the inquiry showed that Persimmon's multi storey buildings did not meet the regulations in place at the time they were built?

PSN didn't build Grenfell, you know.

I am glad for this. PSN (deservedly) acquired a reputation as a poor corporate citizen. I made the decision to invest because I was convinced they had decided to clean it up, and that such decisions should be applauded and encouraged. This, to me, is one more sign that the current leadership 'gets it'. It follows along with the change in the bonus policy, the replacement of Fairburn, the push to improve build quality, the retention policy, the support of employees and contractors during Covid, and the decision to not use the government furlough scheme funding. All of those things say that we're willing to put aside some profit in the interests of being a positive impact on society and putting back in, rather than just taking out.

One can say, 'This should have come sooner,' and that's fair enough, but it has come, and before other builders. I'm happy to see it. It wouldn't have happened under Fairburn. Those living in these buildings will now have the confidence that this matter is going to be resolved whether the building owners take responsibility for it or not. That's a good thing, no matter what the PSN haters might say.

@napth
You are mistaken, I'm afraid. GH is more "inside" at GGP than NCM and he bought shares, so I think we can safely assume they could, as well.

1. There will be times when they don't have any unreported results at all and they could instruct a broker to buy on their behalf at that point in time.
2. There will be times when they don't have any unreported results of any real significance and they could instruct a broker to buy on their behalf.
3. They could construct a "Chinese wall" where the executives who are making share-purchase decisions are not informed of any new drilling results for a period of time, so that they can make non-insider decisions as to whether to buy or sale.

Also, once the instruction to buy is given, they are in the clear. For instance, if in any of the above situations, they instruct their broker to "please buy 100 million shares over the next month, gradually so as to not cause a spike," then they are in the clear. They've given their instruction, and can make it irrevocable. If then they get further inside information after that point, it doesn't matter, they gave the instruction before they had that info.

So, in short, there are multiple ways in which NCM could acquire GGP shares on the quiet even though they are in a JV, without breaking insider trading rules.

"Newcrest cant buy ggp when they have a jv together that goes against trading rules, basically insider trading"

Please cite the specific rule you have in mind. I am unaware of any such rule.

"Can you kindly explain why someone will buy out GGP when Newcrest have full control over most of our Paterson assets? Please do so because I simply do not understand the commercial reasoning. ATB"

It's really very simple. If they believe that the value of the assets GGP owns is greater than the cost (including financing costs) of acquiring GGP, they will consider trying to do so.

If they believe the cost of acquiring GGP is greater than the value of the assets, they won't try to buy us.

That's it, really. The only exception would be if there are non-economic reasons. For instance, NCM might be willing to overpay just to block a takeover by someone like Rio or Barrick, for non-economic reasons. Or, there might be political reasons, or reasons connected to their relationship with other juniors, or simply internal policies, that could keep them from trying to buy us even if they thought the value proposition was there.

But in most cases, it simply comes down to the cold, hard economic equation -- what do we gain, what would it cost? The answers to those questions determine whether a takeover is attempted or not.

It's not all that different from the evaluation every shareholder should make. What do they think the value of the assets is? Divide that by 4 billion shares, and it should tell you what you think is the right level for the SP. If you can get them for less than that value, you buy. If for more, you might consider selling (and maybe buy back when the price drops).

A company considering a takeover makes the same evaluation.

Thanks, Redirons. It's clearly true that NCM will have a different investor profile or investment goals than GGP. I think this point has often been overblown.

For instance, I think recent SP behaviour (and BB chat) provides quite a bit of evidence that a significant segment of GGP shareholders are extremely impatient and demanding -- much more so than NCM, actually.

I also think that the whole mining sector comes with some significant risks and volatility and any investor who knows anything knows that.

I also think that any NCM investor who does any research at all knows that part of the business is exploration. They don't just dig stuff out of the ground, they find it, too. No intelligent investor in NCM is unwilling to be patient with exploration, including exploration failures. None of them, for instance, will complain about Juri, nor would they even if the terms had been somewhat less favourable. It's part of the business to spend money drilling and looking for more gold.

"but also for fairly demanding shareholders (they are not like us, they actually demand returns on their investments)"

Not sure what you mean here. If I weren't expecting a return on my investment here, I wouldn't be here. NCM's shareholders are no more "demanding" than anyone else's. I'm one of them.

If you mean there's a different risk/return profile for NCM investment vs GGP investment, well, yeah, obviously. One's riskier and you expect higher return for it. But I don't get this concept that NCM investors are more demanding. They want the same thing out of NCM's exploration funds that we want out of GGP's exploration funds -- calculated risks, finding good targets, drill them, find gold (and other minerals). They know that there's risk in exploration, they aren't stupid. NCM is in high risk exploration JVs (like Juri) as well as substantially de-risked (Hav).

You aren't the first person to post something like this but I've never understood the point. Shareholders everywhere want a return on investment.

They sold because their AUM (Assets Under Management) decreased. That is probably because of hedge funds pulling money out of GDXJ to close out some of their shorts so they are less likely to get GameStopped. Hedge funds like GDXJ, it gives them exposure to the high return (and high risk, obviously) junior gold market without having to research individual juniors.

So what happens when investors in GDXJ withdraw money from it? GDXJ has to sell some of their shares. They do it by the same percentage set at the last rebalance. I suspect if you looked at other GDXJ shares you would find that they've sold some of them, too.

GDXJ selling 9 million shares isn't the reason the price dropped, but the phenomenon that caused the GDXJ sale also probably triggered other sales. All that, coming on the heels of the short term traders / speculators bailing out over disappointment with Scal results, probably is pretty much the whole story of the price drop.

Still here still holding, added 3x since new year, very busy right now so not posting. Too much noise right now anyway

Usually brokers are using a 6 or 12 month horizon for their target price.

"We can also say that the behaviour is so outside normal behaviour that the only antidote to it is PAC- positive active cleptonomics."

Advocating theft. Violates forum rule 5.a.

Thank you all, all is good. Just a chance to do a favour for someone but will keep me busy several days. GLA

Change of thread title.

I'm unlikely to be very active here for the next few days, haven't read most of the stuff on this board today. Don't want my temporary absence from the board to make someone think I've bailed out.

I bought shares at 36p. I would never have done that if I didn't think Hav would justify that price, plus. If anything, the latest results only strengthened that belief -- if I had spare cash today and the SP were at 36 again, I'd buy again.

So I certainly won't sell at 24-25. How stupid would that be?

See you all in a few days, should be back active again by middle of next week. Hopefully the SP begins to recover by then but if it stays low until 10/2, I'll just buy more.

As Nige always said, BOL.

Heh. He talked about the gold in the ground drying up.

Just think about that one for a minute.

I wonder if it's a competition to see who can sound the most stupid.

LOL, "Accrington Stanley" is longer than "exactly" so how can it be "shorthand"?

/pedantry

" In the mean time please follow my best pal and retired colleague rollotrader. It is past my bedtime now everyone. Let’s hope for some good news rises tomorrow"

Careful, everyone. Maybe this guy is legit, I hope so, but I've not seen our new friend give any information that you'd have to be a geologist to know. Anyone could write the things he's given us so far, and this could all be hype to get you to follow a twitter feed for pump & dump, etc.

Here's hoping our new friend is legit, and definitely give him a chance! But DYOR and be careful, everyone!

@condor "I do think too many people are taking this broker note as a gold standard."

As long as it's not bitcoin standard, I guess that's ok.

I agree. It's one person's estimate. It's a pretty well-researched estimate. But these guys get things wrong all the time. They are human like everyone else. I can guarantee you that the IIs who are buying are looking at their research and analysis but are completely ignoring their target price.