Member Info for TakingMyTime

Yes, if it drops tomorrow you made a good move. And since the whole market is likely to bounce off of today's lows tomorrow, and since tomorrow's results are likely to be a little better than the gloomsters expect, the SP may shoot up and you may have just squandered your chance to recover.

Timing the market is something no one knows how to do consistently, and those who try usually end up losing money, unfortunately.

@Trev
Invested. Average near 240. Investment horizon up to 10 years, target price 6-700. I expect it to reach that level more likely within 3-5 years, but if it takes 10, and in 10 years I treble my money (plus some dividends) I'll be quite happy.

If we hit that level more quickly, I might reevaluate and hold, or top slice. Seven years from now I might be retired / retiring soon, and this share is too volatile to hold in retirement given my view of risk, so I expect to be moving towards a lower investment here within ten years if not sooner.

Never thought I'd buy it, to be honest, but the prices got so silly I couldn't resist. Got in before the bottom but it doesn't matter, if it does what I expect it might mean retiring a little earlier.

@speedy
Hope you are also avoiding any investments or bank accounts where there is any involvement as brokers or otherwise by: Barclays, HSBC, Citi, RBS, UBS, BofA, Deutsche Bank, Rabobank, Lloyds, etc, etc, plus their subsidiaries. I'd also include the Bank of England given Paul Tucker's "interesting" role in the LIBOR scandal.

Trev, in the unlikely event of it happening, it would almost certainly be as of an announced date.

@Dean "On the other hand, IAG has cash reserves of 10billion, hence why I invested."

Are you my twin? Your thinking mirrored mine exactly, both on TUI and IAG.

I expect a dividend, but a reduction.

Given current conditions, current dividend should not be maintained. If there is actually enough funds to maintain it, they should reduce gearing.

@hydro
"He can see the urgent value of that RNS given the misguided bullsh7t all weekend. Thanks Gervaise, much appreciated pal..."

Errm, no. GH did NOT release the RNS because of stuff posted here on the weekend. What was posted Sat/Sun had absolutely nothing to do with the RNS.

He released the RNS because the agreement, which was already in advanced stages, has been finalised. It's an agreement that is hoped to last several years, at least, so it wasn't rushed just because of a few BB comments. It got finished because they've been working on finishing it because they want the brokers to cover the share and get some iis involved. A few comments here had nothing to do with why this deal needed to get done, and once it was done, it had to be announced in the RNS.

I like you, hydro, and I think you give a lot of great info, most of which appears to me to be correct. And you certainly know more about a lot of things around this share than I do. And you actually remind me of one of my best friends. And I don't think you mean badly by it at all, but you do get carried away, sometimes, LOL!

@ Dean "2016 post below"
LOL, good find, likely another one for the filter.

Anyone who thinks the fuel hedging was a fiasco is not dealing with reality. It wasn't a fiasco, it was one of those unfortunate situations where the market moves against you. If the price of oil had increased, it would have been brilliant.

Flights are sold in advance. By buying the fuel in advance, as well, you match revenue to expenses.

@castle, yes, if the bad news is certainly coming they would want to get it over with. I'm not persuaded it is coming nor do I expect they are. They'd rather not do it if they don't have to.

@savvy, I agree that all the talk in the media is about RI, but it was also about BP cutting their dividend last time, and they didn't. We shall see, but I think your analysis as to timing is quite sound. As for your prediction of decline in the SP, it depends on events. As does the RI. If events bear out your SP prediction, they may also result in RI. We shall see.

@WJFrancis, the board can meet anytime they decide to. But I don't expect a decision on RI until September, at earliest, which fits the schedule.

I will be very, very surprised if they announce RI on Friday. That would be beyond surprising. It will be surprising if it comes at all but much more so if it is announced this soon. I would expect that, if they do announce it, the price will also be announced. As you've noted, it would likely be counterproductive to announce it without giving full details and proceeding.

All this is just my opinion, though.

"Total over Exxon for me"

Care to elaborate?

Man. I just read this: "AML have no NED's who would sell out immediately a granted option!!"

It was granted 16 months ago. GGP doesn't have any who would sell out immediately either, because they can't. They only issue options with a 12 month vesting. Fairly standard governance, I believe.

Did you do any research at all before criticising this?

@Goldenl "2. Tier 1, Tier 2, etc ??? We can see from drill results that there is a large and growing and almost certainly commercial deposit of gold and copper - so that is what really matters."

Partly true, but I'd suggest it matters to publicity (thus, private investors) and certainly to institutional investors, so can have a significant impact on the share price. And potentially impact on takeover offer(s). So I think it does matter.

@Davielad " There are circumstances whereby Directors can become personally liable"
Precisely my point, and insurance won't cover all of those, either.

@selecta6 Won't debate the liability issue, it's on the link I gave, it's fairly common knowledge, but whatever. You have your view.

Will comment on this: "Just big issue, with the manner in which he's conducted himself over options."

So, to be clear, Clive Latcham joined the board 15 October 2018. These options along with 8,750,000 others were granted to him 22 March 2019. They were handcuffed for a year and vested only on 21 March 2020. He did not exercise any of them then, though he could have. He's now exercised exactly 1/8 of the options that vested in March, and just under 1/10 of his total options. He subsequently sold those shares.

So, he's held on more than four months longer than he had to before exercising any of those options, and then only did 1/8 of them. That's conducting himself inappropriately?

This is AIM. If you think the board is behaving inappropriately, you'd probably better find somewhere else to invest.

"Its not looking the best at the moment !"

All true. "At the moment" it isn't. So "at the moment" it can be bought for a low price, which will pay off "in the future."

"As for he could be liable!!! The company is a plc,. The l stands for limited!!"

https://www.nedonboard.com/what-are-the-potential-liabilities-for-a-ned/

Extra exclamation points don't strengthen a weak argument.

Well said, WF. I'll add one more thing.

NEDs can be held personally liable for the actions of the company in various situations. Obviously I hope GGP is doing nothing that would trigger that but it's always a risk. I would never advise anyone to take a NED position for the salary he's taking. If it turns out that GH is ripping people off in some way and it's slipped past their oversight, and some lawyer can argue successfully that they were neglectful, they could lose a lot.

This is a half billion pound company. We're concerned about a NED who risked liability to help us build it (and gets paid nothing) using share options to collect £150K. Not £1.5m or £15m or £150m, £150K.

Almost, I could lose faith in humanity.

@RBS
I said that yesterday was Stevenson day, but here's one more for you:
"But a word once spoken who can recapture it?"

There's an answer to that question that Stevenson didn't envision -- the moderators, apparently, can recapture words. They removed your prior stupid post already. I don't see much need to worry about your latest.

Hi, Tig. There are people here who know more about mining than I do but from my research, your understanding of AISC is correct. It is "by-product AISC." It is what NCM uses for Cadia even with very high Cu revenue, and what H&P used in their estimate for Hav.

Accountants may use "co-product AISC," but that is confusing for investment purposes (for this kind of resource). Co-product AISC is higher. In investment discussions it usually causes confusion, so derampers may reference it. If someone comes along telling us we should be using co-product AISC, ask him how he's valuing the Cu resource, and if there's no satisfactory answer, filter him.

(Re: Cadia, the phenomenally low AISC is partly due to a very, very high copper resource. It's not all because of block caving.)