Member Info for TakingMyTime

I don't think they like posts that "(very) loosely" refer to a member. Not the first time that's happened and it isn't always the same member to which they "(very) loosely" referred.

@zoros, I like to think of GGP as consisting of multiple assets. I'm going to use some rather arbitrary numbers to illustrate.

Current SP is about 23p. Let's say, for sake of illustration, that the market is valuing Hav at 18p, Scal at 3p, PRE at 1p, and everything else at 1p. It's possible, if these were all owned by different companies, that would be pretty close, Scal getting a boost due to "nearology."

What's happened over the last year? Hav has had an increase from about 1p to 18p, pretty awesome. But we won't have a 17 bagger increase on Hav in the next year. Maybe, Hav doubles to 36p as they drill deeper. That would be fine with me.

Scal? If we hit big, Scal might be worth 20p this time next year. That would be awesome, a 600% increase in the value of Scal -- but not a 600% increase in the value of GGP. Since it is 100% owned, by this time two years from now it might be worth even more.

PRE? Same thing, Goliath might have a huge surge in value, just like these other explorers. Say Goliath goes from worth 1p to 20p over the next year. 19 bagger! Awesome! But it wouldn't be a 19 bagger for GGP.

If Hav doubled in value, Goliath 19 bagged, and Scal was a 6 bagger, we'd be right about Mickey's old 74p target in a year or two. But that's not going to give anyone investing today a 10 fold increase.

If you want a great investment that is now significantly derisked and likely to keep on growing in value AND give you a stake in some really exciting opportunities, GGP is the best. If you want maximum leverage and the ability to quickly turn a ten bagger, GGP is too derisked for that. Goliath might ten-bag, Scal might ten-bag, but Hav isn't likely to ten-bag from here for a long time, if ever. And Hav drives our share price now.

Are you an investor or a gambler? GGP gives you a chance to invest and effectively get some free gambles tossed in with it. But you won't get the incredible upside of the pure gambles, either. To get that, you have to go with someone who hasn't found anything yet, and get amazingly lucky.

Nice post, Gavster. Haven't commented much here but still invested.

Hi, Nige. Certainly that is one very logical course of action (if Scally hits), but it does depend in part on what NCM offers. GH clearly planned the 5% sale to NCM to cover the CAPEX of going to mining, so as to keep that option open, if the offer for the remaining 25% is not satisfactory to him. The thing is, what seems to make most sense today won't necessarily be what makes most sense in 6-12 months.

The structure of the deal with NCM is part of what convinced me to invest here. It shows a far-sighted board that wants to keep all their options open so they can respond in future as the situation best dictates. It also shows a board that was quite prepared to make it a very good deal for NCM in order to retain that flexibility. That shows a good and mutually respectful relationship with NCM, which takes much of the risk out of the investment.

Every board makes mistakes and overlooks future contingencies, no one is perfect, but this board is definitely looking to keep their options open and plan ahead for multiple eventualities. Seems we'll be likely to benefit.

@impecunious
Yes, IIs aren't going to invest much in an explorer, they will in a gold-producing miner. It would also make us eligible for GDX, which we aren't if we aren't producing. Those are some of the positives. There are positives the other way.

@speedy, agreed, whichever way I don't see GGP ceasing to be an explorer. Here's a scenario for you. Suppose we hit at Scal and decide to keep Hav and use the money to mine Scal ourselves. Does that mean we aren't an explorer anymore? I'd expect we'd spin off the mining interest into a new company, so that GGP could stay focused on the exploring. That would be cool, then we'd all own both a miner and an explorer.

@LL "Dear me....TMT....do you really think 22 to 23 is a share price moving?"
For one day, sure. How much movement for today were you expecting last night? If you want to look back further to see even more movement, you can do that, too, but you dismissed that yesterday. Perhaps you could define what you think is a share price "moving" and then we can talk about it intelligently. Specify percentage gain and time frame, please.

laurenlouise
Posts: 2,293
Price: 23.375
No Opinion

"And that is why the SP doesn't really move..."

You said something similar yesterday (in a thread now deleted) when the SP was 22. Just saying.

You talk about monetising and say we just need an MRE. Anyone paying attention (are you?) knows that the MRE isn't going to cover all of Hav and so is not going to give any more complete basis for monetisation of Hav than we have now. If we want to monetise Hav on a percentage basis, we could. If we don't want to, then we won't be monetising after the MRE, either.

This can go several ways. We could simply sell Hav (now or maybe a year from now when we know more), pay a large special dividend, and get on with exploration. We could basically become a hybrid of a streaming company and an explorer, retaining most of our 30% of Hav and use it to finance further exploration and pay regular dividends. If we hit at Scal, we could become miners and use money from Hav to build our own mine at Scal.

I have my own views on all of those but in part the merits of each approach depend on the actions of others, such as, for instance, how much we get offered for Hav. If the price is too low, we should retain it even if we'd prefer to sell it.

You're being a little short-sighted in taking the approach that "this is what we are." When you find something like Havieron, it changes what you are, it opens up many very good paths you could take. You are right that we don't know which path will be taken yet, but it's not hard to see that there are opportunities no one envisioned two years ago. Which path we'll take remains to be seen but it should be fun to find out.

"Seems like this is being held, for some reason that will become clear in the fullness of time. Gold Price is $1946.03, so I would have expected the share price to rise?"
We're up 5 1/2% today?

@Jet, whatever. I gave the source now, but it's been changed. Doesn't matter. I'm sure there was cheating, there always is, but it's probably not credible to think it was enough to change the election. Either way, I'll shed no tears for Trump.

The main point was that division of power in Congress is almost locked-on now, and is probably good for us as GGP investors. That may not fit everyone's political preferences, of course.

@pigsear
Yeah, so I did check it last night, here: https://county.milwaukee.gov/EN/County-Clerk/Off-Nav/Election-Results/Election-Results-Fall-2020. And it's been adjusted since last night. So either they had a mistake they corrected or they figured out it looked bad and covered it up. Hopefully the first but I have no doubt, as hated as Trump was, that there was some cheating. Anyway, I apologise to the board for not checking it again before I posted.

As for my own view, I despise Trump, but that doesn't mean I accept every demonisation of him that you and yours propagate. Maybe you can't comprehend that.

As for the Senate races, time will tell, but I have my own reasons for needing to pay close attention and not just accept something from Sky. I have sufficient interests and decisions that need to be made re: the other side of the pond to need to educate myself beyond Sky and the BBC.

As for you, since you are apparently unable to play the ball and not the man, you're on filter.

"Sky had a diagram of the Senate and the House, and I believe Biden will have the numbers to have control."

I wouldn't trust Sky for US elections any more than I would trust American sources for British elections.

Republicans currently have 48 seats in the Senate. They will get another in Alaska. They are currently leading in North Carolina by more than a percentage point, that one is pretty much gone. That puts them at 50.

One of the Georgia seats they are leading 50.0 to 47.7, that could go to a runoff. At the latest count the Republican is 3000 votes over the 50% threshold. If it goes to a runoff, the Libertarian candidate drops out. Libertarians are small government so tend Republican if forced to choose between them and Democrats. They might not turn out but if they do more of them would likely vote Republican. This race is very, very likely to go Republican even if it goes to a runoff. Also, Republicans tend to turn out better in runoff elections, historically, and the most hated president in US history won't be on the ballot dragging them down.

The other Georgia seat could be more interesting. The incumbent is not particularly popular. Republicans pulled 49.7% of the vote. The Libertarian only pulled in 0.7%. Green 0.3%, that would likely go to the Democrat in entirety. Independents 1.3%, no way to tell which way that would break. If Biden wins, which seems far more likely right now, there's a tendency to divided government and not give too much authority to a new POTUS. I think this one would also break for the Republicans which would give them 52 seats. But it's virtually certain they'll have 51, unless someone finds some more big boxes of ballots in Atlanta. They did an incredible job of finding votes in Milwaukee, a few wards had twice as many votes as registered voters, LOL.

Notable that at 52-48 a President Biden would only need to persuade two Republican Senators to vote with him on any particular proposal, because VP Harris would have the casting vote on a tie in the Senate.

This really is all very relevant to GGP. The Senate staying Republican means Biden's huge tax increases aren't happening (which is never a good idea in a recession). It also means stimulus isn't going to be as big as he wanted. But it's pretty well locked on that he'll be able to swing at least a couple senators behind a stimulus of some sort, and that means there will be a negotiated / agreed stimulus, which is inflationary, and also no big tax hikes, so ever bigger deficits, also inflationary. That means the price of gold should have continued upward pressure without the tax hikes that might have turned recession into a depression. Pretty good for GGP shareholders, in my view.

If somehow Trump wins, it's pretty much the same story -- can't do much without agreement, the Dems still control the House. More stimulus either way.

"I nicked the table from a post SpadesAspade put up, who, I think, nicked it from someone else."

Poor Dodge, no respect. :)

Exactly, BTB. The MMs are in competition with each other and they may play games but they will be very limited or they will get caught out.

We heard all about MMs holding it and found out later that Beetroot had been selling. Now, we've been hearing for a while about MMs holding it but now we know Prim was selling. Usually when someone is selling a lot of shares they do it gradually over time to avoid tanking the share price. And then we get loads of comments about MM manipulation and holding the price, but it's just market reality.

And then, once the selling stops, the SP recovers from it. Because this is a great investment, these things may take a while but eventually they sort themselves out.

Pretty soon we'll be at 25p, I'm guessing, and then some large shareholders will say, "That's my target," and sell some of their shares. And we'll hear for a few days or weeks about the SP being held, and then the profit taking will stop and we'll go up a little more.

@napth, no prob :)

@Spratt, I don't get your thinking here. Why would GGP agree to such an NDA? Let's think about the whole point of the first refusal agreement. It's intended to be beneficial for both parties.

A first refusal means GGP is not hostage to whatever NCM offers. They can go out into the market and see who else wants to do a Farm-In / JV. It explicitly says GGP can ask others to "swoop in".

But it also is good for NCM. GGP can go out into the market, but NCM can still say, to any deal, "No, not with them, we'll give you the same terms, it will be with us instead." Someone can "swoop" but NCM can swat them away.

It's a way for the market to set the value of the Scal deal. It primarily protects GGP by making them not hostage to the big boy but it does give NCM a way in if they think it's worth it.

If GGP had agreed to an NDA it would have made the first refusal protection effectively useless. So I just don't understand the logic of it and why GH would have agreed. He'd know that, he's very sharp.

Please note, I'm not saying GH is not in negotiations. He very well may be. But I just don't see any reason that he would have agreed to an NDA on drilling results before doing so. Such an NDA would only be counter to shareholder interests.

My personal view is that we have no results because they went back to Kraken and they don't have the second set of results back. And they intend to release all Kraken results simultaneously. And, the first results were quite promising, and they are hoping to blow us away with the combined first and second set.

"Perhaps buried in all the previous NDA's is an NDA that gives Newcrest first refusal on any other discoveries.

Hence a 'forced blackout period' no news until we had a answer from Newcrest, then negotiations, hence we are devoid of news......"

That's a misunderstanding of what first refusal means. It doesn't mean we have to go to them first. It means that we can't do a JV with anyone else without giving them to match the deal we are getting elsewhere.

If Scal results drop, we can march off to Rio and try to get a Farm-In with them if we want. But if one is agreed, then we have to go right back to NCM and say, "Here's the deal, want to match it?" They say yes, or no, as they choose.

First refusal does not give any explanation for delayed results.

"Maybe we are in discussions with Newcrest about a JV and therefore it could be classed as market sensitive?"

But that's my question. The existence of those discussions could obviously be appropriately held to be confidential. But there's no reason to not announce results.

GH didn't withhold Hav results until he had a Farm-In agreement. Why would he? Unless the Farm-In for Hav includes an NDA on Scal results, there's no reason for him to not tell us and get the SP boost before or during negotiations. And if he agreed an NDA on Scal results as part of the Hav Farm-In, I'd be very disappointed.

"I don’t think GH can hold information back from the market(?)"

To an extent he can. We get an update on NCM drilling every 1.5 months. Some of those results, presumably, are coming back earlier than the update and they hold them until the update.

Chances are that right now NCM has additional results from Hav that aren't going to be announced for a while.

"Anybody else think he’s got an NDA on scally?"
Can you cite any reason that he would agree with anyone to an NDA on Scally? How would that help anyone (including NCM), but especially how would it help GGP? The best thing, if he has good results, is to release them and then negotiate, if he wants to negotiate.

Good results should at least marginally increase our SP, perhaps gain the interest of other players, and better facilitate debt financing or an equity raise to do our own drilling. That would strengthen our hand in negotiations -- the more alternatives you have, the easier it is to walk away, and the easier it is to walk away the better deal you can negotiate.

There is no logical reason that I can see to enter negotiations with anyone on Scally without first releasing results, if he has them. So that means there's no reason for an NDA.

No, their back. Just LSE being weird, I guess.

Probably means the mods are cleaning up the politics, LOL.

"If anybody wants Uranium exposure at extremely low MCAP, then have a look at THR who acquired high grade Uranium & Vanadium deposits in USA."

If anybody wants a different kind of uranium exposure they may want to look at YCA (which I am in, full disclosure). A uranium holding company which is currently trading at a significant discount to the value of the uranium they hold.