Member Info for TakingMyTime

"It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly."

Offensive to religious people, check.

Potentially misleading, check, on multiple counts.

Calling people "babybrains", insulting behaviour, breaks another rule.

Posting nonsensical comments, breaks another rule.

Off-topic? Mostly, another rule broken.

Implicitly accusing directors of PSN of tax avoidance without any supporting evidence. I'm sure that's another rule.

And then there's this:
"If you are going to post non-English, please also post an English translation of your post."

I think he only just reaches the threshold on that one.

"I may be quite new and a woman but the bullying must stop somewhere, I am yet to hear a man get the same treatment I"
Soft sexism ("let's all help the poor little woman out") followed by criticism. "Bullying" might be a little strong but I get the point. Others in the past talked about the mortgage decision without it taking over the board. I'm of no doubt it was because the poster that one time had a woman's name.

If we wanted to right more wrongs we could talk about the soft racism that assumes, because someone is intelligent and articulate, that he must be white. It's done without even recognising the assumption has been made.

And then Brits who do these things tend to adopt a moral superiority towards the rest of the world that if other countries / leaders / voters don't follow "British values" that they are morally repugnant. Colonialism runs deep in this society. At least there's not the naval power to impose Britishism any longer.

I've posted it before but since it was brought up yet again I'll say it again. Elise was not the one who kept that mortgage thread running and she asked people to drop it. There's plenty Elise posts here that I don't agree with but the mortgage thread criticism is way out of line.

Sorry for the double post, don't know how that happened. If the LSE powers-that-be want to remove one, that would be cool.

@Paddy "Compared to the ROI on their initial 70% the ROI on the additional 25/30% would be significantly worse."

Hi, Paddy. I would be very, very surprised if NCM make that comparison. When they entered the Farm-In, there was still risk, so they were looking for a very high ROI. That initial risky investment struck gold. But the likelihood of another deal like that is very, very low.

A good ROI for NCM is based on looking at how they could use their money now to get the best return, not based on how lucky they got at Hav (or somewhere else) in the past.

The purchase of the last 25/30%, if it happens, will be a completely different deal and a different situation. There will be very little risk, so the needed ROI to justify it will be much lower.

I do strongly suspect they'll exercise their option to buy the additional 5%. I suspect they will make an offer for the rest. Whether they will make a good enough offer to convince the BOD, I don't know. It has to be a good one, or we'll just wait until the gold starts to come out of the ground. We don't have to sell our 25%, the price has to convince us.

@Paddy "Compared to the ROI on their initial 70% the ROI on the additional 25/30% would be significantly worse."

Hi, Paddy. I would be very, very surprised if NCM make that comparison. When they entered the Farm-In, there was still risk, so they were looking for a very high ROI. That initial risky investment struck gold. But the likelihood of another deal like that is very, very low.

A good ROI for NCM is based on looking at how they could use their money now to get the best return, not based on how lucky they got at Hav (or somewhere else) in the past.

The purchase of the last 25/30%, if it happens, will be a completely different deal and a different situation. There will be very little risk, so the needed ROI to justify it will be much lower.

I do strongly suspect they'll exercise their option to buy the additional 5%. I suspect they will make an offer for the rest. Whether they will make a good enough offer to convince the BOD, I don't know. It has to be a good one, or we'll just wait until the gold starts to come out of the ground. We don't have to sell our 25%, the price has to convince us.

@lseo, as with all things tax, the answer is, "It depends."

First question, are you married, and if so, has your wife used (or will she use) her CGT allowance this year? If you have a wife with CGT allowance still available, you could gift her some of your shares and have her sell them.

Second question, how long are you intending to keep the shares? Can you sell them over time (up to the CGT allowance) and rebuy in an ISA? And your wife as well? It may be that you'll eventually be able to sell all your shares in your trading account without breaching the CGT allowance. If so, you would be best selling the ISA shares rather than trading account shares now -- you'll be able to gradually move them trading account shares into your ISA without a tax hit.

There's a couple risks with that approach though. The first is that they slap much lower limits on ISA contributions, or a much lower CGT allowance. The second is that the company sells and takes matters out of your hands. If either of those events happen and are combined with higher CGT rates, you'd regret selling some of your ISA shares.

I'm guessing one or more of those things happens within a couple years. But if you would be able to move it all into ISA protection when the new tax year starts, it might be worth selling from the ISA instead.

Good luck with it.

Thanks, Jungle. Nothing wrong with being conservative. The initial MRE won't be 13 moz, of course, but I'm hoping it grows considerably beyond that, as it seems like every second results announcement brings us a new breccia zone. :)

@Jungle
First, I certainly hope we do better than $200 / oz for the 5% at FMV. (I also hope and am pretty sure it's more than 8 moz).

Second, once the 5% is done, which it almost certainly will be, we'll own 25%. I hope we don't give up any of that without getting something really valuable back in return, and am not entirely sure how you are getting from 25% to 10%. Are you assuming 10% of revenue (as opposed to 25% of profit, if we continued in the JV)?

Yes, Great Bear's strategy has its appeal, doesn't it? And GH has discussed spin-off as an option. That could go two ways, a streaming spin-off, or a mining spin-off, but I always thought the former was more likely.

It's going to be fun to see where this goes.

@jack
One advantage of using royalties is it means you can monetize before you really know how much is there.

Think of Hav. If all goes well, by this time next year maybe we'll know that we have 20+ moz -- but we still won't know how much. Maybe it's 30, maybe it's 35, maybe it really is only about 20. How do you sell that? The difference between 20 and 35 is immense, and a buyer isn't going to want to pay for 35 and we aren't going to want to sell for our share of 20.

So, maybe you ask NCM to give you some cash for your next year's drilling campaign, leave them with the full responsibility of mining, and you retain a 20% royalty stake. Everyone's happy. They get to run the mine, it's all their baby, nobody has to figure out how big it is, and if it is only 20 moz, they haven't really overpaid, and if it is 35, we haven't undersold our asset.

And you have the money to finance all other drilling going forward, and to pay small dividends over the life of the mine. Then, you go find more gold.

@Jet
I certainly don't think you are lying because the answer you got fits what I said about the resolutions, so due to confirmation bias I am sure you are telling the truth. :)

But honestly, no one should have to decide whether you are lying or not. Anyone can contact the company themselves, and anyone who has reservations about what you said or about the resolutions should. Don't trust, verify; DYOR; all that.

@jackthebear
I personally like the royalty stream idea but it very much depends on what is on offer. There are multiple ways to monetize a find and most of them involve other entities, other as a joint venture or as buyers of the asset. Without knowing what those other entities might be willing to pay, or the terms of the JV they might propose, it is impossible to say which is best.

GGP is/has been an explorer. It is a big change to move into actual mining. But I cannot say that is the worst option, it simply depends on what offers the company receives.

Hav is such a game changer. It means that we should have the money to mine another find, perhaps especially if it isn't under a lot of cover. That does so much for strengthening our hand in negotiations on other finds. If we strike it big at Scally we can always just walk away from JV negotiations if the terms aren't right, and go it alone. It might not be our preferred option but having it as an option should help us get a better JV deal, and at least lets us reject a poor offer.

At this phase of the company's life, having multiple paths available to us is not a drawback, it's a strength. Now if we can just find a nice big resource at Scally, PRE, or both, those paths become immensely interesting.

@LegalWolf
"I find myself in the embarrassing position of my second posting being a direct contradiction of what I said in my first, in terms of the potential for interest from other majors."

I concur with your present opinion that your first post was, well, lacking. :) This one is much better.

I think all parties know that if there is another major find at Scallywag, and if GGP decides to take it to a JV rather than drill and mine it ourselves, that the most likely partner is NCM. That does not mean they are the only potential partner.

For instance, another miner could make a proposal whereby they do the mining and also they contract with NCM for the use of Telfer's plant, and also the use of railway / conveyor belt / road to Telfer. That may not be NCM's preferred outcome but if the other mining company offers more for Scally than NCM wants to offer, it's easy for NCM to say, "Well, we're still mining Telfer for a while, we're still mining Havieron, and now we have this other revenue stream coming in for the processing of Scally, we'll let this one go to Rio" (or whoever). So they decide not to match the offer and instead agree to do the processing. (I'm not saying this is a likely outcome but it is possible.)

Another possibility is that someone else has a major find nearby, and that Telfer simply doesn't have the capacity for ore from Telfer, Hav, Scally, and this other find. So Rio or Newmont or Barrick or whoever mines this other find builds a plant as well, and makes us a better offer than NCM wants to pay for Scally.

Or, perhaps we get significant hits on two of the Scally targets, and another major comes in and builds a plant just for Scally, so you don't have the ore-transport problem.

Of course, there's also always the possibility that we spin off a mining company and use Hav money to mine Scally. In this case, we might still pay NCM to use Telfer processing.

The most likely scenario, if we get a big find at Scally, is that we enter a JV with NCM, of course. But there are sufficient other potential scenarios to pursue the development of Scally that we should not be hostage to NCM in the negotiations. I believe the right of first refusal protected the interests of both parties by preventing GGP from being held hostage but also allowing NCM to have a chance to step in.

I certainly hope you will continue to provide input. It's nice to see someone who actually reads what has been announced, and draws logical conclusions and inferences.

@TallChapJG
You are correct that the percentage should be used. Some people calculate based on number of ounces and expected value per ounce. Those calculations should use 30% (because once the Farm-in ends that's what we'll own).

Others just use a value that came from one of the brokers, which in the case of Berenberg seems dubious since I can't make their numbers add up. But the brokers have applied the percentage to give us effectively a share price value per moz of gold. So, for instance, if they estimate our SP gets 4p / moz, then 10 moz should suggest a share price of 40p, 15 moz should suggest a share price of 60p. That "4p" estimate should reflect the fact that we'll only own 30%.

It's a little dubious because the size of the reserve, the grade, and other factors will have a significant impact on whether it is 3p, 4p, 5p, or 9p per share for each moz. So you can't really do a direct calculation that way, but people do. It gives something to do during lockdown as we wait endlessly for Scally results and the MRE.

Two things:
1. The wording "coming months" was used in the AGM presentation as well. So was "December". So the wording does not necessarily indicate a change, and probably doesn't. If there was a change there is no reason for them to be less than clear about it. In fact, given past statements specifying December, and given the possibility of SP impact if it is delayed, it probably should be RNS.

2. Even if it is a change, it is almost certainly simply a result of delays in getting drilling results back from the lab, rather than any change in strategy. We've already had expectations set by GH about what is included, if they are now going to take time to drill deeper first to include more at depth results or broaden the included area, surely we'd be told that. There would be no reason to hide the fact and perhaps many reasons to announce it.

Must not be much fun to have every word you utter parsed to the nth degree.

I'm going to bed, I suggest you all do, too.

If you say that's not news because I go to bed every night, and there's no real breaking news at all, you might be right.

ATB :)

LOLOL, not just at the joke but some of the responses.

Jet, if I wanted to post something, I might just post some words without any statement of where they came from, and say, "If I were in the know, I might write an email like this about resolutions 4 & 5." The worst that happens is they take it down.

But I have to respond to Dave on profit. You'd be right this time, mate. Jet's obviously running a business, rather than merely making investments. As such, profit margin rather than investment profit is the right metric. You're a genius!

Site rules:
5. You will not :
a.
b.
c.
d. post any private communication, or part thereof, from any other person, including from a member of the board of directors of a listed company. Such posts cannot be verified as true and could be deemed to be misleading.
...

"No matter how great the effort or the talent some things take time. You can’t produce a baby in one month by getting nine women pregnant."

This warning, whilst true, seems unlikely to be necessary, for anyone who gets nine women pregnant does not seem likely to have been motivated by a one-month-baby desire. :)

If Jet got a reply from GGP then anyone else can write them and ask for an explanation, and you'll probably get exactly the same answer he got.

You don't need to see his email and in fact, according to site rules, he's not supposed to post it. (Of course, those rules are often disregarded and not enforced :)).