Member Info for TakingMyTime

"Jeeez everyone is entitled to an opinion, there's no scope for another 10 bag here."

Yep, you're entitled to an opinion.

Scope for another 10 bag? Like, who cares, mate? Institutional investors are piling in because there's scope for really good gains here. Would be a shame if we only get a 5 bagger from here, wouldn't it? Do you understand the difference between investing and gambling?

Of course, if Scal hits big and Goliath hits, we'll ten-bag from here and more, even if nothing else does.

@Bamps "TMT Investments plc"

LOL, you've outed me! Doing ok, thanks.

@JB "dated 17/12/20"

You are right about the percentages but that's as of Thursday close, not Friday. Almost certainly the shares have already been bought, just not reported yet. They will be reported as an after hours off the book trade late Friday, probably just after 5 US Eastern time.

@SocialistB
Thanks for the nice note. Appreciated.

Someone turned Mrs into a Marxist but she got better.

We got little open abuse. The worst we faced was some of her friends saying, 'It's cool that you've got a black husband.' After a few times, she started saying, 'How very racist of you. It's cool that I've got a great husband.' LOL. It wasn't very nice of her because they were trying to say it was good that colour wasn't a barrier. But the word spread to not say that to her.

Glad the sepsis was caught in time. Treasure the times you have. ATB.

Hi, badshah. In September there were repeated buys of 8 million shares the week of 14-18 September. Those shares have never showed up on any reports of large shareholders. The reason is simply that GDXJ authorises an institution to acquire shares for them throughout the week and then that institution sells the shares to GDXJ on Friday after the close.

This last week, we've again seen multiple buys of 8 million shares, twice a day all week. That's a little much to be a coincidence, isn't it? Their authorised institution has been buying shares on the market all week, which is why we've had a nice steady rise.

Now, here's what I think. Last time, instead of buying 8 million twice a day, they should have been buying 10-12 million. But they messed up their calculations, and only changed it late in the week (thanks to pressure from hydro and Jerry). That meant the authorised institution didn't have enough shares for them. So they had to go hunting for shares, first with a massive tree shake on Thursday and Friday, then with a closing auction.

That didn't happen this time. Their calculations were right. Their authorised institution had enough shares. They've bought them from the authorised institution in an off the books trade as far as our exchange is concerned, late enough after hours that it wasn't reported Friday (remember, they are a US fund, their normal hours extend long after our exchange closes). They'll update their website on Monday and we'll see the changes. The big trade will likely be reported on Monday as a late after hours trade that took place on Friday.

We are more likely to see a drop in price than an increase on Monday, unless Scal results are released Monday morning. Since the whole thing was more orderly this time, I doubt the drop will be anything like last time, and might not even last the whole day. But there will be people who waited to see how high this would go who will likely take profits on Monday.

It is possible I am wrong on this but I do know a little bit about funds, institutional money, how these people think and work, etc. I've read the information on both the index and the fund very carefully, and perhaps here, only AM90 knows it better. And my track record on the impact of GDXJ isn't too bad, either. It would be nice if I am wrong but I hope no one bets significantly against me (and AM90) on this one. He seems to be of the same view as me -- the GDXJ shares have already been purchased on the open market.

Hi, badshah. I appreciate you doing direct research and showing the logic backing your conclusions. Nice work. However, you've made an important mistake which throws your conclusions into serious doubt. It's easy to do with these ETFs, there are so many little intricacies, and it is easy to get one or two things wrong, and have it throw off all your calculations and conclusions.

I've done the same several times. Until just a week ago, I never did understand the share price they used in the September weighting. I thought they'd done something wrong in addition to the mistake Hydro made them fix. I thought they'd messed up on the SP used in this month's weighting, too. I was wrong, there was a rule I was overlooking.

So where are you wrong? They just haven't updated the website to show Friday's transactions.
They don't update it after a rebalancing until the following Monday.

When GDXJ bought GGP for the first time in September, their large buy wasn't showing over the weekend. They don't show the transactions they did on Friday until Monday.

The result was that we had an entire weekend with speculation about who the big buyer on Friday was. We all knew GDXJ was supposed to be buying, but then there was the huge late buy on Friday, but their website didn't show it. So people were speculating it wasn't GDXJ after all. Some people thought it might be Newcrest, or somebody starting a hostile takeover attempt. It went on all weekend, and then on Monday, GDXJ updated their site and showed the shares.

So your research was fine but it missed the fact that they don't update their site until Monday. So it doesn't at all prove that they haven't bought yet. It just proves what we observed last time -- they are slow to update their site. Maybe they haven't bought but your research doesn't prove it and I'm quite certain they or their appointed rep have bought.

Sorry to disillusion people but anyone who assumes GDXJ is still to make a huge buy is almost certainly going to be very disappointed on Monday.

@napth, don't be an idiot. Just because someone didn't have full information and made a mistake doesn't make him a liar. It's fair enough to say he's wrong, but there's a huge difference between an honest mistake and a lie, and you owe him an apology for calling him a liar. Totally unnecessary.

Agree with hydro and AM90. I think the repeated 8 million buys over the last week were in behalf of GDXJ by the party that purchases for them in these situations. Those shares have probably gone into GDXJ's hands after hours in a trade that hasn't yet been reported because it happened too late.

Last time, the transaction that took the shares out of their agent's hands and into GDXJ's hands happened in the closing auction. I suspect that may be because their agent didn't acquire enough shares during the week, so they needed to go to auction to get a few more, which ended up being a nice deal for some other institutions that were independently front-running to get in on the action. This time, perhaps they had enough shares already and so it didn't have to happen in the auction, which is why we didn't see it after close yesterday.

Because the exact SP couldn't be known, the exact number of shares GDXJ needed couldn't be known in advance, either. I suspect that this time, they had enough, and maybe too many. Perhaps that is why the UT after hours yesterday was at a lower price, perhaps it was GDXJ's agent dumping their excess shares, or some of their excess shares.

If they were significantly overbought, they will be selling through the next week. I don't think it will be that much, though.

I guess it is possible that the 20 million trade from yesterday was them selling because they'd acquired too many. I think, though, that is unlikely, I don't think they'd have overbought by that much. I suspect, as hydro appears to, that it is someone else buying in on a large scale, which would be brilliant if so.

I am speculating. This is on the fringes of the stuff I know well -- I'm not a complete novice in this stuff but certainly not an expert in how this works.

But I think you'd be making a mistake to base decisions on an assumption that GDXj-related buying is going to happen on Monday. It probably isn't.

I think you'd also be making a mistake to assume GDX is buying in on Monday. I believe the chance of that is so close to zero as to be considered certain, whatever some guy on twitter said.

Wonderful to read, thanks for sharing, all the best to you.

@Jet, keep laughing, it helps. Good luck, mate.

Dear Sir Dodgy's Agent

Please inform your client that if I were him I'd also be mortified by this discussion. And I find the fact that he is mortified at least moderately encouraging.

Also tell him I'm ok. And thanks.

Dear Sir Dodgy's Agent,

I note your client's recent message including these immortal words, "OK guys, as I'm now officially No:6 in the list of the most popular people on the planet." Unlike his ten thoughts, I will restrain myself to 3.

1. Whichever planet your client is on, he may wish to return to Planet Earth at some point. I fear the landing may, however, be bumpy for him.

2. Your client, apparently having gained some fans, now wants to be feared. My fans LOVE me. It's much the better way.

3. I am glad your client likes being #6. One must make allowances for those who know they could never actually be the best. A football manager once said second is "not a disaster" -- and finished fourth. Perhaps your client supports Arsenal?

Kindest regards
TMT (#1 in my own mind)

"Yes and at 500000 oz per mined per year it will take nearly 40 years to mine it."

Some of what you say is true, no doubt. The fact remains that if Hav goes to production in 2-3 years and produces at 0.5 moz / year for 40 years, anyone invested significantly at today's SP is likely to have made the best investment of their lifetime. If they invested earlier, all the better.

@Bancal
I also criticised the Scal/PRE valuation last time. I suspect it was based on what they thought we could sell the tenements for. I'm sure we could have sold them for that much, but we were never going to do so.

It was right to assign some value to them because the possibility of a hit is not valueless. The amount they assigned was, to me, crazy.

But ultimately, I want them to bring in IIs, and the broker note is only a small part of that.

last word "shareholders" not sure why it was cut off....

These guys get a lot of abuse / criticism on here. That's because people don't understand what they are doing.

Let's go back to their remit. RNS 30 July, GH said, "We are very pleased to announce the appointment of Berenberg and Hannam & Partners as Joint Corporate Brokers and we look forward to working with both firms to further strengthen our relationships with new and existing institutional shareholders."

How many shares did we have in the hands of institutional investors 4 1/2 months ago? How many do we have now? Huge difference. Maybe they are doing something right after all?

People here have been unhappy with Berenberg's target prices, with the "hold" recommendation, with the wide range of valuations that they presented in their first broker note, etc. I'd suggest that is because you are thinking about these things as a PI rather than an II.

A PI may look at the broker's target price. The II rarely cares. The target price is "this is what we think the price is likely to be in 12 months" (or sometimes six). It is based on lots of assumptions, which may be optimistic or pessimistic.

The II may be investing with a 3 month horizon, or a 10 year horizon. They don't care what the broker thinks about the one year horizon. The target price is irrelevant. Even if they have a one year horizon, they may have drastically different assumptions about the future price of gold, or other things, from the assumption used for the target price.

The first Berenberg note gave a very wide range of target prices, based on widely varied future scenarios. The PI might say, "That's useless, give me a number to tell me what it's worth." The II says, "That's very helpful, we can plug our own assumptions in and get an approximation." They'll probably have a variety of models / scenarios that they want to war-plan for. They don't want a single number.

The latest note, apparently, uses $1400 POG -- and arrives at 33p, I guess. Now, suppose you are a fund manager looking to invest a million pounds (or 2, or 3, or 10 million). If you think the average POG over the next ten years is going to be $1400, you'd say, "Hmm, Berenberg thinks that leads to today's price, not all that attractive." You wouldn't buy, unless you believe there's going to be another big find for GGP.

But what if you think POG is going to average $2100? Well, that's a 50% increase over the Berenberg assumption. That takes the SP to closer to 50p. That makes 33p very attractive.

Berenberg is giving the institutions the information they want, drawing their attention to the opportunity, and instos are buying. WHO CARES if their target prices are conservative? They are giving their conservative assumptions, and enough instos are using their own more optimistic assumptions to buy and drive the price forward.

I am completely happy with Berenberg. Their notes aren't that satisfying to PIs but they are doing what we wanted them to do -- finding institutional s

@sprouts "a dip as the reality of funding"

Were you aware of the recent JV and funding agreements? If you still have reservations about funding I would like to understand them.

@Bamps "I was over the moon with the copper grades at 0.61% that's massive."

Yes, that's amazing. I've been saying our AISC can't approach Cadia's because we won't have as much Cu byproduct. Now, I'm saying, 'Hmmmm....'

@mickey -- buy more shares and you'll get more than a quid when the SP goes up. ;)

@Jet -- this share has been more like five hops forward for each one back. No complaints

@Spratt -- LOL, don't know about the extra mile, but extra words is something I often do, unfortunately

@Bamps, I think "slightly deflating but not too bad" is a great way to put it. I don't agree with some who seem to think it's a great MRE. Well, it is a great MRE, but we thought we had reason to hope for more, and I for one don't want to jump up and down at something lower than I was expecting.

But it doesn't change my view of what we have. And if we can stave off any hostile bids until we prove up more of it, that would be pretty nice.

I've not commented on the MRE.

My initial instincts, way back, were that the MRE would be around 4 moz. Almost everyone was projecting higher. I looked at where the drills were going (thanks, Paddy and others) and said, "Everything is going into the SE, they are looking to prove that up, it's going to be 4 moz."

Should have trusted my instincts, but everyone was throwing higher numbers out there, including some people a lot smarter than me on this stuff. I got dragged into believing 5-6 moz, and never recovered from it. Even after Gervaise said it was going to be a very limited area, which fit what I was expecting originally, I only dragged myself down to 4.5 moz. Sometimes, you need to trust your own research and own instincts even if people smarter than you don't agree, I guess.

So, I was expecting 4.5, or maybe 4.0 at the worst. That meant the MRE was a little disappointing to me -- no point in pretending it wasn't. (I know, it's 4.2 Au eq, but I wasn't thinking in terms of Au eq, just Au.)

Doesn't mean I believe in the share any less, of course. We're still headed for an eventual resource of at least 12-15 moz, in my view, and that more than sustains the current SP. I strongly suspect for reasons I've posted previously, that it is considerably in excess of 15 moz. Still, I was hoping/expecting for a little bit larger initial MRE. I suspect I'm not alone and that if it had come in over 4.0 that the retrace would have been much smaller, if it happened at all.

So that's my thoughts on it, in case anyone cares. Maybe it's old news by now. In six months time, it will be ancient news, and the resource will likely already be double what it is now (or more), with still more to come.

@Dodge, thanks. Er, why would I mind that you told your wife? I put it out on the blooming Internet.

Seriously, tell her thanks. Also, tell her I said you are one of the good guys, just as insurance in case (in those moments of insanity which happen in every marriage) she ever doubts it.