Member Info for TakingMyTime

@triumph
"I genuinely think a takeover is probably the only way for current holders to see a decent appreciation on SP here."

You don't think a JV with NCM and BHP has a significant upside? Genuinely asking because if that's on the cards I see it as likely to draw lots of investors, including institutional investors. It creates a coherent path to monetisation of the asset.

I have no dog in this fight (yet) but I filtered one of the posters a long time ago on GGP. He was angry about something I posted that turned out to be correct, LOL. So I see the argument here and unfiltered him to see what he's up to here. Just struck by the irony of the following:

"The problem is one of immaturity, a lack of respect for other peoples views, a wider reflection of society today, narrow minded ness.

Its why Trump was elected and why Brexit happened.

People who don't like an opinion resort to insults and name calling...."

LOL. Calling people immature, narrow-minded, not respecting others' views. Implying those who disagree with him here are the intellectual / emotional equivalent of Trump supporters (which in itself shows a stunning lack of comprehension of the complexity of the Trump phenomenon). And then, he accuses other people of insults and name-calling.

And he probably didn't even realise that he was doing it himself.

Good luck, all. As I said, if NM goes, I'm investing here. I'm not convinced there's a clear path to monetisation of the assets with him in charge, and I'm not enough of a gambler to invest in that scenario. But unlike some people, I do recognise the other argument. NM's approach would maximise the ROI -- if he could pull it off. The risk-reward ratio of that is not to my taste.

I agree, schlem, and that's why I'll be investing.

There has to be a clear path to monetisation, NCM has showed a willingness to provide that path for GGP/Havieron and no reason I can see they wouldn't do the same with SOLG. Chances are good BHP would play ball.

Everyone can win big if you have a CEO who doesn't care about holding onto all the toys and so can't play with any of them.

I could easily see triple-bagging or more from here if there's a three way JV like you suggested.

But I will be if NM goes. He's the one reason I've held back

Ah, the idiots are back. Filter, filter.

I'll predict a few big winners in 2021. I am likely wrong, but for the fun of it, shares I expect to return more than 20% this year, in no particular order after the first:

GGP, GGP, and GGP.
PSN, probably also BDEV
IAG
PUR
HZM
NCM
BP
EVR
SOLG
YCA
TPK

Note, I am not invested in all of these. I've got too much money tied up in this gold explorer in Australia to invest in every company that I think is likely to do well.

Also, there's a reasonable chance that some tech companies will blow all of these away, but I'm convinced we're in a tech bubble that will burst sometime and I'm staying out of them. I also expect a significant pushback against Big Tech on political grounds in America at some point and it could hurt them significantly. I wouldn't even rule out domestic terrorism -- when people think they are being censored and their country is being taken away from them, they do very, very stupid things. So I won't touch Big Tech right now.

@Tymers
I got scared by Covid, Brexit, and US election and went heavily into cash in early 2020. Very fortunate, I got out of almost everything before the initial drop. I bought back in too early on some things, but still did phenomenally well in 2020. It was a great year if you got out early and got back in cheap. It was even better if you got into GGP.

I held onto 4 investments throughout all of 2020. Counting dividends:
Evraz -- +31.4%
BP -- -45%
PSN -- +6.8%
ABF -- -11.5%

Bought and sold during the year:
BBOX -- +21.2%

Bought during the year, still holding:
GGP -- multiple lots, one a two bagger, all but one over +50%
ROR -- +19.7%
IAG -- +9.6%
BP (more bought during the year) -- +4.0%
PSN (more bought during the year) -- +43%
ML -- +39.8%
NCM -- -7.8%
YCA -- +6.5%

The numbers make me look like a genius but primarily I was lucky to find GGP and lucky to cash out before the drop and buy in when things were really low. I still expect my big losers (BP and ABF) to recover significantly, and I expect NCM to start to fly this year. I also think IAG has a huge upside from where I bought it, I expect to multi-bag it within 5-10 years or less.

I don't think looking at 2020 is a good way to measure someone's investing prowess. It was a year where getting lucky could drive enormous returns.

Hi, Speedy. National Grid makes profit. They'll reinvest some of it to maintain / upgrade infrastructure, but not all of it. There is no obvious way to reinvest their profit to grow the company. They could build more power infrastructure, but it has to provide return on investment, you don't just build infrastructure for the fun of it.

If they don't have a clear way to grow the company, what should they do? Pay dividends.

ABF. I own shares in them. They own Primark. It's not obvious that it will be effective for them to open more Primark stores in this country, we're not far off saturation. They pay a small dividend -- but they are also using profit to open Primark stores in Europe and now in the US. Good move, IMO. I'd be happy if they didn't pay a dividend at all, and just opened more stores. But at some point they may reach saturation in those markets, too. Should they expand to Asia? Will the Primark model work in Asia? Maybe not. If they don't think it will, then maybe it will be time to stop expanding and start returning funds to shareholders through dividends.

Dividends make sense when you have more profit coming in than you can or should use to be growing the company.

GGP has lots of ways they could use cash to grow the company. It's a long, long time before GGP should be paying dividends, IMO, even if we begin to be profitable. But certainly, for many companies, it makes sense. The more mature a company is, the more likely it will be to be appropriate to pay dividends.

"Shaun starts on 8th of Feb"

There are very specific reasons why an AIM company can withhold price-sensitive information from the market. Letting the new CEO have the glory of making the announcement is not one of them. If they get the results before then and can reasonably get them out the door, they have a responsibility to do so.

And I don't see any reason that they should deprive Gervaise of that one, anyway. He's earned his moment in the sun, if the results come in before then. He's the one who put us in this position.

Even if the new variants overwhelm the NHS and we pay a high and painful price in fatalities in the short term, in the medium term the vaccine should change the virus from a horrible killer into a bad flu. I don't see this as really impacting the long term investment case for this company.

In theory, companies should give dividends when they have profits which can't be EFFECTIVELY invested into the business to grow the business. In that case, they should pay dividends to their shareholders (owners) so that their owners can invest the money themselves.

Practically, many things come into play as to whether investment would be effective. Does the company want to grow, for instance? Maybe they are content with what they are. Is the return on investment going to be better or worse than how the owner/shareholders will do on their own investments? What about tax considerations? What about the fact that for some companies, they've created an expectation of dividends that people (such as pensioners) may be dependent upon?

But my first paragraph gives the general theory.

For a gold explorer like GGP, we have no profits right now, so won't be paying dividends. In theory, we should start to pay dividends when the profits exceed the money needed to develop and/or purchase promising targets.

@Jambo
I absolutely agree that NCM would want to negotiate once Scally results are known. In fact, I think they wanted a deal on Scally rather than on Paterson Range East.

I also agree that they would want to be a step ahead of the competition. And they are, they have the RFR. And they bragged about it in their RNS that announced the Hav and Juri deals.

I get all that. What I don't get is why they should care whether results are announced to the market before they negotiate. How does that help them? They already have RFR. GGP can't do another deal with anyone else without them being able to match it.

And I don't get how it helps GGP to withhold results from the market during the negotiation. Why? How does that help our position? Even if NCM wanted us to do so, how does it help us? We're not equals but we aren't slaves, either. If they want that level of control they should buy us....

What am I missing here?

Personally, I'm convinced that NCM didn't want Juri, they wanted Scal, and GGP said no. That's why their RNS said "we still have RFR on Scal" and ours said, "we still own Scal 100%." No need to even talk about it unless everyone is going to be talking about it soon. Of course they want to negotiate. For some reason, that deal didn't go through when the Juri deal did, so why do we think it is going through right now?

@MFU, given the time of year, holidays, etc, I think we're still in the "just after Christmas" timeframe.

To be clear, I totally expected results sooner. So I understand the speculation. But we are today exactly three weeks after Christmas and at least 1 1/2 of those weeks no one was working. Most people didn't go back to work until a week ago Monday. So if the lab didn't have the results before Christmas, then they didn't start on them until last Monday earliest. I don't know how long it takes them but then they send the results, then GGP analyses them and decides what they are going to say.

I don't think it was credible to expect an RNS last week. This week, yes, very possible. Next week, more possible, IMO.

I think it's fair enough for someone to find the speculation "tedious." I don't -- that's why I took time to respond to it. I don't find it credible for the reasons I gave previously. But speculation can hit on the right answers and be very useful to investors, I do plenty of it myself. It helps me think through how to react in the event certain things happen, and that both helps my confidence in my investments and my ability to respond quickly if needed. I speculate a lot.

@dave, I don't think anyone said there's anything "wrong" with the speculations. I certainly didn't. People can speculate all they want.

And I can say their speculations aren't credible because it doesn't make any sense.

And Floater can say their speculations are tedious. I don't see why you called that hypocritical or contradictory. It's a legitimate opinion to have, even if he speculates about other things on these boards.

Just a reminder.

For two months, we were being told over and over again on this board that Scally results were undoubtedly being delayed because of ongoing and sensitive JV discussions with NCM.

Then, at the AGM, we were told categorically they were delayed due to delays at the lab. So the "NCM JV negotiations" speculation back then was all wrong.

I am relatively certain it continues to be all wrong. There is no reason to delay announcing the results for negotiations. It isn't in GGP's interests to delay the results, if good, it is in GGP's interests to get them out there and see the SP rise before someone starts a hostile takeover attempt.

It is not in NCM's interests to delay announcing the results, either. They still have right of first refusal. They aren't attempting a takeover (or they wouldn't have financed Hav for us). They don't want Barrick or someone else to take us over, that would be a pain for them, it might lock them out of Scal since Barrick could just go it alone. So it's in NCM's interest to see our SP go up, too -- unless they are buying, which they couldn't do if they knew Scal results (it would be under NDA).

Sorry, I simply do not think it is credible that there are ongoing Scally negotiations with NCM and that's the reason results haven't been announced. The same people assuring us of those ongoing negotiations today are the same ones that assured us that back in November.

I've still not seen, here or anywhere else, one credible reason why GGP would want to share the results with NCM and not tell the market, if they are good. I've not seen one credible reason why NCM would want the results kept quiet during a negotiation, either.

I can see loads of reasons why GH, who understands markets, would want to release the Scally results to boost the SP, and then go into negotiations with NCM on another JV, which when announced, would also boost the SP, so you get two really nice RNS announcements and two big SP boosts.

And I can also see why GH would want to wait until NCM's RFR expires, or is about to expire, to enter a JV on Scal. It's a way to maximise negotiation strength.

Results are not being delayed but shared with NCM to facilitate a JV negotiation. It doesn't make sense. They'll drop within a week or two.

"NCM buying our shares makes no sense to me, as an investment it's not the best. "

Seems like a good investment to me, I bought more last week. If NCM thinks the shares are undervalued, why not?

If NCM wants to protect against Barrick or someone else coming in and messing with their nice little game, one of the best things they could do would be to quietly buy up 5-10% of GGP, then drop an RNS saying so. That would be a huge "hands-off" signal to the rest of the industry that they'll have a fight if they target GGP. The fact that the SP of GGP is likely to increase significantly over the next year or two is a bonus.

@Spy "NCM continue to buy back their own stock in the interests of self preservation."

I think you are thinking of Newmont, who is buying back their own shares. Newcrest issued more shares last year to raise funds.

I don't have any knowledge of Barrick buying shares but it wouldn't surprise me.

I also agree that NCM might be a potential takeover target. The JVs with GGP give them potentially huge assets that aren't yet reflected in their market price, and could make them more appealing to someone aggressive, like Barrick. It's possible Barrick is buying NCM shares rather than GGP shares. It's also possible that NCM wouldn't be all that opposed to it happening -- would no doubt make a really nice payday for Sandeep and others.

Bottom line: NCM and GGP share assets that are almost certainly undervalued by the market. That means corporate raiders might target one, or both.

1. I've had an eye on Barrick from my first investment here. They are obviously willing to engage in M&A activity, and have the resources. Pretty sure Spy thinks the same, FWIW, and I'm pretty sure that at the least he knows somebody who knows somebody.
2. Our JVs with NCM make any outside takeover less likely.
3. I always thought an agreed takeover by NCM was a strong possibility until the 30 November agreements on Hav JV and financing. That was an extremely stupid thing for NCM to agree if they wanted to take us over, it probably at least doubled the cost of doing so.
4. I now think NCM only takes us over as a "white knight", if someone like Barrick comes in with a hostile bid, and the BOD goes to them and says, "We'd rather you buy us, care to top or at least match this offer?" That, of course, could start a bidding war, but NCM is in a better position to take us over than anyone else.
5. I'm a little surprised NCM hasn't taken a position in us at all, to give them a head start in the event of a bidding war. Of course, they might have taken a small enough position that it doesn't have to be reported, but that would hardly be much of a head start.
6. I suspect the Hav financing agreement was debt, rather than a placing, at GGP's insistence. If I'd been Sandeep, I'd have wanted equity rather than debt. GH stuck by his word on that, to our benefit.

"If I'm planning to hold the shares for the long term then what is the effect of shares being shorted?"

Effect is probably nil. Short term, it reduces the SP, but if the SP goes up, the short seller gets squeezed which can, again for the short term, drive the price up as they scramble to close their short positions.

For LTH, possible but highly unlikely effects include:
1. If SP is lower, a large buyer (private or institutional) might be more likely to buy in, which could potentially have a long term positive effect on the share price if their hands turn out to be sticky.
2. If SP is lower, it could tempt a corporate raider (another miner or a venture capitalist, perhaps) to attempt a takeover. That could start a bidding war, which might or might not be positive for shareholders, depending on how it goes.
3. If SP is lower, it will make any capital raising (through rights issue or placing) more expensive, to the detriment of the company.
4. If you top up on the spike caused by a short squeeze, you could overpay for shares.
5. If you top slice on the spike, you could benefit.
6. If you top up when the SP is artificially depressed by the short, you benefit.

Practically, there's unlikely to be enough impact on the SP for any of these to take effect, and even if there were that much impact, it would likely be very short-lived.

It is very rare for short selling to have enough impact to matter to LTH. Short selling usually only has a significant impact if there are significant other problems with the company. If the investment case for a company is solid, there is unlikely to be major short selling, and even if there is, it only has ramifications for traders, not LTH.

"I'll be ecstatic if we get a 10 moz resource at Hav" Oops, I meant Scal. I'm expecting more than that at Hav. But anything over 10 moz at Scal will be immense. 30 moz would mean we've all been deramping.