Member Info for TakingMyTime

JS, Spratt, I'm expecting tax relief on pension contributions to be hit one way or another. The best way out of this is to supercharge growth and it's the one tax that won't hit growth badly. CG increases will discourage investment and hit growth.

Look for the annual limit to be decreased to 30K or even 20K, or for relief to be limited to 20%, or both.

Well, MD, you didn't retract your 152 million, but I'll let it pass. Re: your expert, three thoughts for you to ponder:

1. Experts get lots of things wrong and there are experts who support the fast track.

2. Just because someone is an expert in one area of science doesn't mean he's an expert in politics or political motivations.

3. When they expedited a vaccine for H1N1 under Obama, it was lauded as saving lives, even though that pandemic was much less severe than this one. When they expedite a vaccine under Trump for a much more severe pandemic, it's not saving lives, it's "taking risks" and "politically motivated." Don't you find that contrast interesting? I do. And to be explicit, Dr Osterholm is very much part of the political establishment and Trump is anti-establishment, so his comments on politics are of course going to be negative towards Trump, and should be taken with a grain of salt.

Of course, if you believe that Obama was the embodiment of all virtue as POTUS and that Trump is the embodiment of all evil, then point #3 will leave you cold. I, for one, think that Obama was far from perfect and that Trump, despite his obvious flaws, has a lot more merit than he gets credit for. I also expect Trump will win again, so if your investment strategy depends on him losing you might want to reconsider.

@MD "First you said the H1N1 was not a pandemic,"

Reading comprehension and MD have never met, apparently. I never said that. Citation, please, time & date. If you can't cite it, retract.

"You then show your ignorance by ignoring the facts on the H1N1 death rates that effected those most and they were people between age 18 and 65."

Nope, not me. Citation please, time & date. If you can't cite, retract.

All I did was deny your ludicrous 152 million figure. Still defending that? I never said anything about who was affected (not "effected") by H1N1, or the ages impacted. Nothing.

I'll give you that the CDC says it was first "detected" in the US. Death rate was skyrocketing in Mexico first but it wasn't confirmed absolutely there, the first official confirmation was in the US. Your statement that it "originated" in the US is probably wrong but it was first confirmed there, so I'll cut you a break on that one, it's reasonable to think that from the text.

Still standing by your 550K deaths from the vaccine? Still standing by your 152 million deaths from the virus? Still standing by your claims that I said those things? Come on, be a man, admit you were wrong and then we can go forward.

@Spratt "The possible inclusion in GDXJ was not on anyone’s radar to begin with, and in my opinion has not contributeD to the recent slow rise."

Three things.
1. This week's rise was not slow, LOL.
2. I know for a fact of some money coming into this share on both Monday and Tuesday from someone who chose to change plans and top up now rather than later because of GDXJ. That was me. Maybe not enough to be a big factor in the rise this week, but I doubt I'm the only one. Better to get in at 13-14p than 18-20p or more. Had intended to do that in Oct/Nov instead.
3. I know for a fact of a new buyer who put a chunk in to front-run GDXJ. Whether he'll hold afterwards or sell when GDXJ buys, I don't know. I doubt he's the only one.

I'm pretty sure this behaviour, by me and others like me, and by my mate and others like him, did contribute to this week's rise.

I also think it's a significant bonus if it happens because it's good defence against a premature takeover. I don't want a takeover at least until we know whether Scal is anything more than a bunch of granite. I don't want NCM or Rio or Barrick to get rich off of Scal without paying us something good for it, so a higher SP would be extremely useful.

LOL. I suspect both Boris and Trump know which continent Mexico is in. And I suspect they could read the link you yourself provided and notice the difference between the 152 million you cited and what the article actually says.

This is not about differing political views. This is about manufacturing statistics that have no bearing on reality, and insulting someone who calls you on them. And you can't even consistently construct a proper sentence, which wouldn't be that bad if English were your second language, but I suspect it isn't.

@mickey "Hey nap jambo is a LTH and a respected poster. I’m sure he’s excited as anyone just airing on the side of caution ."

Exactly. Add to that, he wasn't casting doubt on the drilling results, he was doubting the GDXJ investment, and saying if it doesn't pan out, MMs will pull the price back until the next drilling results.

Might want to read more carefully what someone says before taking shots at him.

MD, Mexico is in NORTH AMERICA. You're not helping yourself here.

152 million worldwide? What a load of rubbish. SHOUTING in uppercase and providing links doesn't make it so. Your link doesn't say what you claim. Your claim that 550,000 were killed by the vaccine and 20 million permanently harmed is irresponsible fear-mongering. It's a complete lie. 15,000 Americans did not die from the vaccine, 15,000 died from the pandemic.

"A REAL PROBLEM WITH FACTS" -- indeed. You have zero credibility. If you research investments the same way you research pandemics and vaccines, I predict a poverty-stricken retirement for you.

@Spy "I'm going to buy that pub"
I bought it yesterday, am open to offers from you, Tig, and any Aussies or secretive Canadians.

@Jambo
"I honestly think this one is going to disappoint a few...."

This is not the first time you've said this. I'm curious whether there is anything substantive that makes you think that, or if it is just nebulous caution (which is not in itself a bad thing).

The case seems very strong that we will be included in the index / ETF. Also the numbers indicate it will result in a very, very large buy. How much that would move the SP, is less clear, obviously (as is the impact of front-running, which seems likely to have already started). All the evidence seems to point that way. But are you seeing something I've overlooked?

Perhaps to break it down, so I can understand your thoughts:

QUALIFICATION
1. Do you think GGP doesn't qualify because it isn't yet producing?
2. Do you think GGP doesn't qualify because the market cap isn't high enough?
3. Do you think GGP doesn't qualify because of insufficient trading volume? (And if so, in which time period?)
4. Do you think GGP doesn't qualify because of some other reason? (And if so, what reason?)
INCLUSION
5. Do you think GGP qualifies for the index but still might get left out of it for some other reason? (And if so, what provision in the index rules justifies that concern?)
6. Do you think GGP will be added to the index but might get left out of the ETF for some reason? (And if so, what provision in the ETF rules suggests that as a possibility?)
IMPACT
7. Do you think GGP will be included in the ETF but the buy won't be particularly large, say, less than 80 million shares? (And if so, what provision in the index guide suggests that?)
8. Do you think GGP will be included in the ETF and the buy will be large, say, over 80 million shares, but it won't be enough to move the SP much?

Would appreciate your thoughts.

@Floater "but it is not the easiest place to get to"

Choose an easier place and organise it. There's no reason Tig's get together has to be the only one. The place you choose won't work for everyone, either. Doesn't matter -- if they care, they can arrange a place that will work for them and see if they can attract some others.

I suppose this is becoming too political, I'll withdraw from the vaccine discussion.

The media have been doing their best to scare people to death. What makes you think the regs are being changed just to suit a political agenda? We're hearing every day how many thousands upon thousands are dying. Maybe it's not a political agenda, maybe it's to try to expedite getting something to help people.

Maybe those who are telling you it's just a political agenda have an agenda themselves.

The same people who are telling us how terrible this is and how everyone has to shut down their lives and their jobs and even their family contacts are now moaning about fast tracking treatments and vaccines to help with it. Getting a little fed up with the doom-mongering. If it's as bad as we're being told, they ought to be fast tracking some things.

I'm willing to bet that the things that are being fast-tracked have been tested more completely than the polio vaccine, smallpox vaccine, penicillin, and a host of other successful treatments from the past. People were dying and if a solution was found they wanted it.

Did you guys happen to notice that the dollar plummeted? Do you know what a dropping dollar usually does to BP's SP?

BP has huge USD assets and the dollar dropped. The SP has held up remarkably well given what the dollar has been doing.

"English isn't your strong point is it BigBadWaz ?"

Maybe, maybe not, but unlike some others he knows that Monday is a bank holiday.

Depends on 1) what fast tracking means and 2) who is using it.

If fast tracking means you clear a few bureaucratic hurdles but you don't skimp on testing, that could be a very good thing. If it means you are taking short cuts on testing, it isn't generally.

But, it also depends on who is taking it. I know people who are probably 90% likely to die if they catch this. Who is to tell them they can't take a vaccine even if it hasn't been sufficiently tested? For people like that, at some poit they should be able to choose whether to take the risk or not, even if it hasn't been sufficiently tested to be fully cleared for the general population.

A little odd. The link that AM90 gave shows under Index Parameters, bottom of the second column, the next review is 18 September. The right sidebar, bottom, under upcoming reviews, says 11 September.

If they don't know, how are we to know, LOL?

@AM90 "TMT - its all in the below - up to date market cap"

Thanks!

AM90, I did the same. I don't think Wallbridge was even close.

"Three month average-daily-trading volume of at least 1 mln USD at a review and also at the previous two reviews."

That means a three month average of 1 mln USD at the June review, the March review, and the December 2019 review. The three month average at the December review fell well short.

1. Why it matters -- if it happens as we think, it bumps the SP up substantively. That has positive benefit for LTHs who have multi-bagged and want to cash out, or at least top slice. It means their shares go into relatively sticky hands. It also has benefit for those of us who have higher targets -- it helps prevent against a too-low buyout attempt (from NCM or someone else). If SP is under 15p, a raider might be able to steal the company for 30p. If over 20p, they might have to pay 45-50p to get it.

2. Comparisons to WAR and other recent additions to the index/ETF are useful, but we should remember that comparing our MCAP today with their MCAP three months ago is flawed. POG will have driven the price of most index constituents higher, and that's going to affect percentages. If someone has nothing to do this weekend they could run a check of the MCAP of all the constituents at the last reset date and the current MCAP, and that might give you a closer estimate of how much is needed.

"TMT - all True. But also we don’t have any evidence of any huge funds holding do we?"

No, but we wouldn't have, unless they bought 3%, which would be very surprising. But if I were managing a hedge fund I'd be monitoring trackers and how they work and looking to front-run rebalancings. It's almost free money for them if they go to the work of finding out exactly how the trackers work.