Member Info for TakingMyTime

Ah, you thank me now, Mickey, but if I'm wrong you'll hate me!

If I'm missing something, hopefully someone will point it out. It would be mind-blowing if it weren't GDXJ.

Hi, Mickey. I don't have any hard facts but I'm 99% certain it's GDXJ. Will explain why.

1. The amount exactly matches what they should have been buying if they calculated the free float correctly.
2. There were rumours that the buy might be delayed to COP NY time, but that wasn't the case. GDXJ bought De Grey at COP Ozzie time, so they would have been buying GGP at COP London time -- and that's when this came in.
3. There's not a hint that there were two concurrent buyers of more than 100 million shares. There was one very, very large buy order.
4. GDXJ showed a miniscule holding at end of day Thursday, so that means they weren't the repeated buyer of 8 million share blocks.
5. The very large buy order had, as I understand, a price up to 35p. That's tracker behaviour. Trackers use a high enough price that they WILL get the shares, because that's their rules, they have to buy.
6. It isn't non-tracker behaviour. If you aren't a tracker, you build up a stake over several days so as to avoid spooking the market. Maybe you buy in 8 million blocks, maybe a lot of them in succession, to avoid tipping off most of the market that you are spending over £20 million pounds. That's how a managed fund or a corporate raider might behave. They wouldn't go big until they couldn't hide anymore.

I don't know about the other buys. It's possible those 8 million buys were just to build a stake to feed to GDXJ, and someone turned a fairly quick profit. It's possible it was another institution building a stake. I suspect it was the former, but it would be great news if it's the latter. Some of those other buys were chunky enough that they are likely institutions as well.

I think probably we've got some other institutions involved now as well, but I'm 99% certain the big one was GDXJ. Anyway, we should find out, it's more than 3%. I'm assuming we'll find out Monday, unless they didn't quite get everything they wanted, they probably wouldn't have to report until they are done. I could be wrong but I expect a TR-1 listing GDXJ as owning more than 3%.

For other institutions, we'll have to watch the Morningstar report and see who turns up (there's nothing new yet). But funds often don't report until three months later, so we may find out on the GGP annual report first.

The problem with going after the MMs over Friday is that people willingly sold. The inclusion in the index was public knowledge. The fact that GDXJ was buying in was public knowledge. There's no secrets about how the index works, no secrets about the tracking, and people still sold.

Nobody forced them to sell, the sold because they chose to. Either they hadn't done the most basic research into the near-term conditions of the investment they held, or they went against what they knew because of fear or some other emotion.

That's not the fault of the MMs. They took advantage of it but that's the way the markets work. If people had refused to sell at the lower price, the MMs would have ended up buying at 28, 29, 30, 35. They'd have had to, to be able to fill the order. They'll say they didn't have orders to buy until closing, they had orders to sell, so the price dropped. The big order was after closing. We know what they did, but they did it because sellers let them get away with it. It was all within the rules. The rules aren't there to protect those who haven't done their research, or those who don't follow the research they've done.

5% or more of your total net worth is a large holding. <1% is usually a small holding, though some might say 0.5% is the threshold.

If it's 5% of your total assets it's a lot of money to you.

LOL, won't get rid of me that easily, Dave. Thanks for the feedback.

Fair enough, dave.

I get a little hot when some "Johhny" we've hardly ever seen before comes on here mindlessly ramping and calling other people's posts dribble and utter garbage, and can't even get his facts straight. Probably over-reacted. Apologies to the board.

Merc, if they do 39p, it better be a six month target and not a 12 month target. Because no one knows exactly what's going to happen but I think a 39p target is going to look very stupid 12 months from now.

Of course, Lenz. 1/4 of the gold and 1/4 of the costs will be ours, 1/4 of the profit. If we hold this all the way to mining, rather than sell to NCM, we'll probably be looking at profit in excess of $1500 / oz. 1/4 of those profits will be ours.

If we have block cave mining we might be looking at AISC around $350-500, which would be phenomenal.

But AISC isn't going to be $200 or less. Hav is not yet the biggest gold find in the world. GDXJ did not buy in because they think it's great, they bought in because they track an index that includes us. And it's a fool who thinks this can't drop on Monday, and a fool who gets scared if it does and sells. We should actually be warning people that it might, and that they shouldn't be tricked into selling if it does. There's still a massive upside here for those who don't get spooked by a temporary drop.

@Johhny since you are still on this, and you mentioned Cadia's AISC, I have some questions for you.

1. Do you know how the Cadia Cu production compares to the anticipated Havieron Cu production?
2. Do you understand how Cu byproduct production affects AISC?
3. Do you understand that Cadia has the lowest AISC in the world?
4. Do you understand that Cu is a huge part of the reason for that lowest in world AISC?
5. Do you understand that block cave mining, while a great thing, is only part of the Cadia AISC story?
6. Do you know what toll processing fees will have to be paid to NCM for processing the ore at Telfer? Do you know how that is going to impact the AISC for Havieron?
7. Do you know how the cost of transporting ore to Telfer is going to affect AISC, and how that compares to ore transportation costs at Cadia?
8. Do you know how CAPEX is or is not reflected in AISC?
9. Do you know what tailings are, what the ramifications are for AISC, and how that is going to compare between Hav and Cadia?

10. If you can't answer those questions accurately and with some detail, how can you possibly compare Hav AISC to Cadia AISC?

I'm going to make one of those 99% certain predictions -- Hav AISC is going to be substantively higher than Cadia's. Hopefully far, far lower than Telfer's, but not even in the same league as Cadia.

@Johhny
It is good to be confident and better to be correct.

1. Solgold has a find that is confirmed to be bigger than we know Hav to be. Hav might end up being bigger but we don't know that yet.

2. You said, "if anyone buys that type of money its to make a major return overall." No, in this case, they bought that kind of money because they are a tracker and the rules of the tracker dictated that they do so. It has nothing to do with whether or not they think it will be a success. Trackers aren't paid enough fees to do research and make an assessment .

3. You said, "Every single gold fund and institutional money managers will now have Greatland Gold as the next biggest gold discovery of decades." Rubbish. Every gold fund already knew about this and most institutional managers won't come near a gold explorer, and the fact that GDXJ bought won't tell them anything about how big the gold find is. They understand what GDXJ is even if you don't.

4. You say that the SP won't drop. I hope you haven't bet on that. It's very common after something like this for there to be a temporary drop. It could be over in an hour, or a day, or a week. I don't suspect the drop will be permanent, the find is too good. I'm certainly not selling. But the chances are very high there will be a temporary drop. It has happened many times after GDXJ buys in. Sometimes the drop is permanent, sometimes it is permanent. This one will be temporary if it happens.

I don't usually engage in point by point rebuttal but when you call other people's posts "dribble" and "utter garbage", you shouldn't post rubbish yourself.

Good luck with it Tom. Seems like a reasonable plan in your circumstances.

@TomE
My opinion is that there will be a lot of people who bought lower and really like a 25p or better price. There will be private investors who decided to front run GDXJ and want to take profits. I expect the SP to drop on open on Monday, to maybe 24-25p, but I'm guessing, it might even go lower.

I expect it to recover to the 25-30p range by the end of the month, maybe even better if we have good news.

If we get a lot of other institutions buying in like EP expects, it could be better than that. But in any event I expect some profit taking first on Monday morning. I don't think it will be all the way down to 21-22, though.

I am often wrong on short term price movements, but that's my guess.

Stuart, mostly right but not entirely.

The institutions know, just like we do and like you stated, that GDXJ is decided on technical factors, not on research. So being included in GDXJ / the MVIS index, is unlikely to have any great impact on institutional buying. It might possibly raise our profile a little bit with institutions, kind of like being in the AIM 100, but it probably is not a prerequisite to an institution buying. Anyone who would think about buying this share was already aware of us before inclusion in the index.

However, index inclusion may have brought some II buying in sooner. I speculated about this earlier, that Berenberg was possibly not going to release a broker note but perhaps working behind the scenes. They might have been telling their contacts, "GDXJ is buying on Friday, best get in now." So GDXJ might have been an indirect trigger to bring some IIs in sooner than they might have.

We'll probably never know.

Of course, this is all fun and games, the real driver on this company is the gold.

Responded, thanks!

Anyway, since that single trade is more than 3%, any doubts will be answered soon. But it's GDXJ. My certainty level on this exceeds 99%.

Is Lenigas that unaware that he doesn't know about GDXJ and it's size? You'd think anyone in the industry would have known who was added to the index....

Ever been a fund manager or worked for one? Just wondering. Because what you just described doesn't sound familiar to me.

If a fund manager spends his time manipulating emotions using large buys and sells, or if he uses bots to make his trades, and if he goes around trying to make or break companies he likes or doesn't like, if he has unlimited resources, if that's the way a fund manager thinks, it would be a waste of time for anyone here to think like him. None of us have unlimited resources, none of us can make big enough trades to manipulate emotions, none of us can make or break a company, and we can't do much about it if they can and do it.

Personally, I'm of the view that Hav and the company management are going to make this company even if some fund manager decided to break it. But there's no reason any fund manager would want to do so and no way they could anyway.

@Giggs2006
Yes, GDXJ weighting is based on the free float market cap. Free float just means if large holders/institutions own a big chunk (5%+), that isn't included. Right now, we don't have any of those. It also excludes shares owned/controlled by insiders.

But once the free float shares are determined, they are then multiplied by the share price at the end of the prior month, in this case, August. So if the SP at the end of November is, say, double what it was at the end of August, then GDXJ will have to have double the investment.

It won't quite come to that, because the shares they already own will have increased in value some, too. So they won't have to quite double their investment in that case. But yes, if the price is significantly above where it was in August, they'll be buying again in December.

@dsmith "and surely his " advice" will not be missed."

If you come here for "advice" you are doing it wrong. I come here for different perspectives and for shared research to inform my own research. I also come here for a kind of friendship, not the normal kind, but still there's something shared between people on the same journey and I enjoy that.

I don't want schlem back for his "advice" but I valued his research, his willingness to share it, his willingness to express views which many who hold them won't express them. He became part of the community and I appreciated having him be part of it.

He always said he was going to sell at 20p. You may say that means he played it wrong but he gave some of his reasons in previous times and they were solid.

Do us all a favour. Monday morning, whatever the SP, buy a few thousand shares. It will probably be below 25 for a while due to profit taking, anyway. So you sold at 20 and are back in at 24 or something, that's not that much if it's only, say, 5000 shares. You know you want to.

You know this is going to go to 74p at least (unless Mickey has updated). So you'll make a few quid on it.

But the main reason is you are addicted to the share and to this board. You know it, we all know it. And we're addicted to you, just the thought of going a whole week without a schlemiel post gives me the tremors. Feed the addiction, you know you want to. You need to. It's in your blood.

It doesn't have to be a lot. Just one little buy. You can stop anytime you want, anyway, you've proved that, so it's safe to come back to it.

Come back to us, schlemiel. We need you, and you need us.