Member Info for TakingMyTime

Spev is right, GGP is a one trick pony right now. The trick is finding large and economical-to-mine deposits of precious metals in a good jurisdiction. It's been done so well that it doesn't ever have to happen again for this to be a great investment. But we do have reason to hope the trick will be repeated.

@Yellowstuff
"Anything else I sell will be taxed at this years rate to which the 30 day rule does not apply. (Hope that is right)."

I am not sure what you mean by this. The 30 day rule has applied for years. Either I'm not very bright, or you've not expressed yourself clearly, or you don't understand the 30 day rule, in which case please get detailed help on this from someone with whom you can discuss specifics. You don't want to make an expensive mistake.

@strudel

LOL. My sympathies. Dr TMT has to inform you that your condition is probably incurable and that hopes of an MRE resolving the problem are probably futile.

@Yellowstuff
One more suggestion, then.

If you have any of your ISA that isn't in GGP, you could
1. Sell non-GGP shares in your ISA.
2. Use the money from the sale to buy GGP.
3. Sell GGP shares in your trading account.
4. Use that money to buy the shares that you used to have in your ISA.

In effect, you'd be swapping GGP into your ISA and your other shares out of your ISA and into your trading account. But you'd be taking the capital gains this year, which is what you've said you want to do, and obviously paying any associated capital gains tax. And it would shelter future capital gains on GGP for those shares in your ISA. It would, of course, expose future gains on your other shares to capital gains tax. But if your primary goal is to take as many capital gains as possible this year, this seems an option worth exploring, depending on your holdings.

Again, take advice if you aren't sure you fully understand this.

@Yellowstuff
The wording may be complex but the rules are simple. If you sell and then buy again within 30 days, you don't solve your capital gains problem, the gains are effectively carried over until you ultimately sell. This is only an issue with a trading account, within an ISA there are no capital gains and within a SIPP gains are only taxed when withdrawn.

You have the following ways around this:
1. Sell and don't buy back in for 30 days. Obviously if major good news comes through this could be a mistake and cost you more than the tax.
2. Sell out of your trading account and buy back within an ISA. This makes all kinds of sense if you haven't used your ISA allowance, because any future gains won't be taxable. There are ISA contribution limits so you may not be able to do this with all of your shares but perhaps you could do some of it.
3. Sell out of your trading account and make a SIPP contribution and buy within the SIPP. Again, there are contribution limits.
4. Sell out of your trading account, give the money to a spouse (if you have one) and have the spouse buy GGP with it (ideally within an ISA if possible). Obviously you need to have sufficient trust to do this.

You can do a combination of these as well.

If you don't fully understand all this, do nothing and take advice from someone who does.

"I suppose you could argue, is GGP one of the explorers in the group he’s selling now? Or, is considered as Merc puts it, a higher quality advanced explorer..?"

You certainly could argue that, Hydro. My original response to Merc said he was arguing from an unknown, and he is.

But at least, as has now been noted, it's an unknown that is a reasonable guess, rather than simply the mistake of conflating an ETF tracker with managed funds, which was what I thought Merc was doing.

We're all drawing conclusions from reasonable guesses all the time, otherwise we wouldn't even be invested here. So while Merc's point wasn't ironclad, it was fair and legitimate and I made a wrong conclusion about what he was saying, which wasn't fair.

So unless Merc is going to require me to do 50 Hail Callums, 100 Our Gervaises, and climb Mount GGP on my hands and knees before I can be restored to his good graces, I'd like to draw a line under it and move on.

Ok, that's reasonable, apologies, objection withdrawn.

Cool, Merc. Did he say he's adding GGP to his own PF?

The only fact in evidence is that the ETF has been adding. Your argument would be compelling if we know he's adding GGP to his own PF. Otherwise, it's tosh, and misleading.

I'd cut you more slack if you were stupid but you aren't and I think just about everyone here expects well-reasoned arguments from you. With that comes responsibility.

"Secondly, on the Sprott holdings, Rick just mentioned in his latest interview that he is moving the portfolio into the more advanced Explorers/Producers and established companies, he believes that the more speculative mining plays have now been over bought (a few I've watched do a few 100% over the last few weeks spring to mind) as he says these more advanced companies will offer safer, and bigger gains as the gold bull run plays out.

So he must think GGP are now in both the "De-risked" and "Bigger Player" categories if he's adding right?"

Wrong. And this has been explained repeatedly.

Rick Rule is talking about their actively managed funds such as their Gold Equity Fund. The Junior Gold Miners ETF is a passive investment (tracker). It purely tracks the index and the size of their investment in GGP is based solely on the index percentage and the size of their ETF. The more money invested in the ETF, the more will go into GGP. In November, GGP's percentage in the index will change which will also affect how much goes into GGP.

The rules of the tracker are clearly stated on Sprott's website and you can research the index and see how it works, too.

This has been stated so many times and is so easy to research and verify that you really ought to know better and not state things like the above.

I think the last reported holding here was 28 million shares. Morningstar is now reporting they held 30 million as of 30 September.

The increase will be because they've had new investors pouring money into their ETF, which is being invested pro-rata using the percentages as of the latest rebalance in May.

The next rebalance is next month and might result in an increase in their GGP holdings, but I don't expect a huge buy, might move the SP a little bit. Here's the current Morningstar listing:
https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xlon/ggp/ownership

"Elise, sorry - bloody auto correct"

Oh, come now, Davielad, you aren't getting away with this. Elise now knows you've typed "Amelie" into your phone so many times that it corrects to that. You're busted.

I don't know which share Amelie is invested in, but you're obviously two-timing both Elise and GGP. Just come clean, it's usually the best way.

Bamps, few people could draw me back but you are one. :) Great post and I agree on almost all of it.

You mentioned the copper and cobalt. I suspect they are valuing those as by-products, which would be used to lower the AISC, and thus justify the not-quite-as-conservative value per ounce. So I doubt they've forgotten those. Whether the note says so, of course, I can't say, and I could be wrong. But I think they are hyper-conservative on the number of ounces and only marginally conservative on the value per ounce, which suggests perhaps that's driven by co-product considerations.

It might not be popular around here but I'll add this -- this note is in line with my earlier warnings that the maiden resource estimate may not be anywhere near as big as people are hoping. We will see when it comes. I hope people don't panic if it is 'only' 4-5 moz, I'm quite sure there's a lot more gold than that down there, as well as the other minerals.

ATB, hope your family is well.

@MF11 "Perhaps if we get up to 30Moz they will value it 50p per 1Moz, here's hoping anyway."
LOL. There's such a thing as economies of scale, of course. The larger the resource the lower the CAPEX per oz, and the higher the grades the lower the AISC as well. So a larger resource should have a better value per oz, but they seem to be taking it to an extreme. Doesn't really add up.

@TTB, my point exactly. They've gone ultra conservative on the resource size and somewhat conservative on the value per oz.

GLA. Disappearing again for a while, still holding all my shares and can't rule out buying more, even if relatively inactive here. The gold is still in the ground, even if Berenberg doesn't think there's as much of it as most of us do.

Thanks for the confirmation, T&T.

Thanks, Jersey, I was pretty sure you were just copying. They've done something that sounds very wrong.

And you were right about the date, an obvious mistake.

I've put in a request for this note but I'm not sure I'll get it. Thanks for providing what you have, don't burn your source or copy more than excerpts, you don't want to stir up the copyright police.

First, it's screamingly conservative.

Second, it's still marginally higher than the market price today.

Third, it's based on only 5.4 moz of gold at Hav, and stated as such. Well, if Hav only has 5.4 moz then 22p would be pretty good -- and Sandeep Biswas and Gervaise Heddle are charlatans of the highest order, with all this talk of Tier One, etc. It's conservative almost to the point of absurdity to use 5.4 moz for Hav. If Hav is only 7 moz their target price would be 37p. What if it's 10 moz, or 15, or 20? "Open at depth...."

Fourth, they've used a mid-point value for gold-in-the-ground. Because Telfer allows a low CAPEX for Hav and because NCM are experts in low-cost mining, this is also probably conservative. The 5.4 moz that they are talking about would probably justify closer to 25-27p (if not the upper end 31p they mentioned), in reality.

They've been conservative on gold-in-the-ground value, and ultra conservative on the size of the deposit -- and they still come back with a price marginally above today's price.

The interesting thing is their treatment of our other Paterson holdings. It appears to me that they've valued them based on what we could sell them for today. In one sense, that's reasonable. No doubt, there are plenty of explorers and miners who would buy, both the small ones and bigger players like NCM, Rio, and Newmont. Nearology means we could sell Paterson holdings easily.

But it seems a dubious way to value those holdings because we aren't selling them. They are either going to be worth a lot or worth nothing. So it's not conservative to value them based on something that isn't happening. Conservatively, they should value them as worth virtually nothing.

My guess is they did it that way because they want to stay ultra-conservative on Hav (the MRE will then make it easy for them to say "new info" and upgrade), and they didn't want to drastically undercut the SP.

One more thing of note. JC may confirm this, but some of the numbers don't seem to quite add up. If they are valuing Hav at 614 million (USD) with a 5.4 moz estimate, then a 7.0 moz deposit should take it to 796 million USD, an increase of 182 million USD, or perhaps £140 million. That's approximately 3.5p per share, yet they say it would increase the SP target from 22p to 37p. That's cloud cuckoo land. Going from 5.4 to 7 moz will not result in a 70% increase in SP. So perhaps JerseyCrew hasn't got everything accurately transferred over, and this post has been based on the assumption he has.

If anyone here really thinks there's only 5.4 moz Au in the ground, then this is a pretty positive note. If you don't think that, plug what you think in, adjust the numbers accordingly, and be very happy.

Also just to say, I don't mind a broker being conservative on an AIM share.

@Adz
Prim sold over time, they only announced when they were done selling. I'd guess most of their selling was done when the SP was 12p. It's all pretty much irrelevant history now.

"Hold. If in doubt...Hold."

Great post, Dodge, I agree.

@JoeBass
"GGP can't advise any broker of a price point, that would be unethical at the minimum.
They do however, furnish them with info not currently know by the public."

Do you have any evidence of this assertion? Any price-sensitive information is legally required to be disclosed to the public. If this broker note is based in part or in full on information which has not been publicly disclosed then someone is breaking the law.

@Bamps, so sorry to hear about your son and granddaughter. I also have had family members catch Covid, and thankfully they came through it fine eventually. Hoping the same outcome for your family, though two of my family members had a rough time for a while, hope yours can avoid that.

All the best to you, friend. Not posting much right now but still appreciating your posts.