Member Info for TakingMyTime

You can see Australian tracking ETFs here: https://www.marketindex.com.au/asx-etfs#aust-index-tracking

I can't tell you if that list is complete or not. I don't see $200bn there, or close to it, and the biggest ones there are ASX200 trackers and the Vanguard ASX300 tracker. We're already in those, though as I said, when each does a rebalance, our higher MCAP means a higher percentage and more buys. Nothing that will be as impactful as GDX, I believe.

GDX will be buying somewhere around US$225M in GGP shares, I believe. That is real money, but still not as important as what the price of gold is doing.

Good luck, all.

Awesome, Jerry and I are on the same page. Hmm. Punter and I are on the same page. Awesome??? LOL.

MK -- your AI post doesn't really reflect the fact that most of those positive benefits we already have, because we are already in the ASX 200. The very fact that ASX 100 trackers are tiny and ASX 200 trackers are much, much larger tells us all we need to know -- being in the ASX 200 has pretty close to as much cache as being in the ASX 100. It's not like the FTSE where there's a big difference between being in the 100 or the 250. We have to understand the ASX and the way these ASX indexes are viewed, not just assume it's like the FTSE indexes. It's not.

The most significant impact of moving up into the 100 is simply the weighting is increasing. The big tracker ETFs in this market are the 200 trackers. We have been in them and we still will be in them. What's different? We'll be in them with a higher percentage. When the biggest ASX200 ETF tracker rebalances, it will be buying more GGP because we'll be a bigger percentage.

It's not a huge mover for us. E1's numbers were overblown and I still don't think he really has it. And it's not going to be all one massive impact at once, either. It will be a net positive for us, though. I believe the GDX is a bigger positive. I suspect there's frontrunning of that already though. That's ok, the frontrunning helps push our MCAP higher, which means a higher percentage in both ASX trackers and GDX. It's all good.

Ultimately, that's all just market temporary blips here and there. What really matters is how much more gold we find / acquire from explorers, how good we are at getting it out of the ground, and what we can sell it for. That's the main driver of this story and what will go on giving us all a very good (and fun to watch) investment.

@Element1

"ASX ETFs trackers AUM is circa $200bn and a recent report that suggests our weighting should be around 0.5% just in ASX 100."

What's your source for the $200bn? The largest ASX ETF trackers are ASX200, and we are already included. Unless I am completely missing something, you are off by orders of magnitude. I expect inclusion in the ASX100 to be a small net positive for us. GDX inclusion will be much more impactful, I believe.

It is possible I am missing something.

E1, your calculations earlier.

A gold price of 10K probably means a lot more than 10% inflation. Your AISC estimate is too low under this scenario.

The biggest question is what happens to our reserves. Do they increase substantially in that time frame or not? If so, the price could even be higher. If not, the price could be significantly lower. Share prices almost always have some built in "what's the future?" component. If gold production looks like increasing in the coming years, GGP will go even higher than the annual earnings would suggest. If it looks like it has plateaued and there's no real increase on the horizon, it will be lower.

The second biggest question is probably the macro situation. What will the geopolitical situation and the inflation outlook be like? Does gold still seem to be on an upward trajectory, or will the big money be holding or even starting to reduce holdings in gold because the bull run looks like it has run its course? If the trajectory still looks upward, a miner like GGP looks very, very attractive. If it looks like it might be leveling off, or even dropping, the upside potential in GGP might not look that great. Those who are always looking for the next big thing won't be looking at gold miners so much, in that case.

It's a very bullish scenario for GGP and your estimate reflected that but your AISC guess probably pushed it higher than it should have. These other factors can make a huge difference as to where we would actually end up in that scenario, though. So many unknowns.

Hi Red. Very sorry to hear about your battle. As many here know, it's personal with me. I wish you (and everyone you love and everyone who loves you) all the best, not just for physical health but for peace of mind and true happiness.

-TMT

Trump is living inside a lot of people's heads.

Yeah, I mentioned insider trading / assymetric information. Those numbers are off the dial but won't move the dial on the POG.

The thing is, with gold, the main information is right there staring us in our face. Massive deficit spending and significant geopolitical instability.

Hi, speedie. "That does not stop them from gaming the system in the paper market for short term trading profit."

After getting their fingers burned in the past, the likelihood of JPM doing this is extremely low. Especially because the growth in the market makes it harder to move it. And because if they pulled the spoofing thing again everyone would be blowing the whistle on them. They aren't loved by other market participants after that.

That doesn't mean they won't have clients who are bearish on gold and open short positions. They might be holding short positions and long positions at the same time in different accounts. Their private client business has exploded in size, with tech advances allowing them to use automated trading to respect each client's investment goals and views. Separately Managed Accounts (SMA) is all the rage these days. They don't actually care whether the client accounts make money or how they are invested. They make their money on the fees. So their investment arm can have massive short positions and massive long positions all at the same time, all in individual clients' accounts.

As you said, they are long on gold in their own funds. But the existence of both long and short positions in their trading arm is not manipulation, it's serving their clients' wishes. Think of a million different investors, some bullish and some bearish on gold, and JPM is simply providing the mechanism for those people to pursue their disparate investment views, and taking a cut for their services.

@Jack10 Yes, you're right, I'm not very bright, but I do know the difference between Ag and Au, the difference in size of the respective markets for the two metals, and that the larger a market is, the more difficult it is to manipulate it. One doesn't have to be bright to know those things.

And also the fact that the recent huge bull run in gold has made the size of the market (in dollars) much larger and thus much harder to manipulate (using dollars or other currencies) than it was in the recent past. I don't have to be bright to know that, either.

I also noticed JPM has been consistently bullish on gold throughout this run, repeatedly increasing their price targets. I don't have to be bright to know that someone carrying $500M in shorts won't encourage the market to buy, unless they are really stupid. And JPM isn't that.

No tinfoil hat for me. The wild swings in volatility are exactly what you expect in a huge bull run when people get scared at how far it has run. Fear Of Missing Out becomes Fear Of Missing A Top and Fear Of Better Options, and people jump off wildly and then FOMO kicks in and they jump back in. Even professional money managers can get caught up in these things, and private investors do all the time.

But I'll try to get brighter. It's something I've been working on all my life. I bet you could do it, too.

"I think at those low percentages all below 1 % it's totally insignificant not worth commenting on"

Probably true but flip them around and there'd be complaints about manipulation all over this board.

"Am not sure what to say if you believe everything is fair as above board tbh TMT…"

Assymetric information is not fair. Institutions have high-powered research capabilities that give them an edge -- that may be above board, there's nothing illegal or inappropriate about doing more / better research, but it's maybe not entirely fair. Assymetric information is also undoubtedly sometimes not above board, in that they undoubtedly manage at times (with or without collusion) to get hold of insider information that the retail investors don't have.

Assymetric opportunities are also sometimes unfair. Institutions or very wealthy individuals can often bring massive resources to the party, and they may get better opportunities to buy into certain investments than the retail investor would.

But the likelihood that someone is manipulating the share price of a multi-billion pound company is low. And the likelihood that anyone would or could manipulate the price of gold is vanishingly low.

Among the "they" who are supposed to be manipulating the gold price, J.P. Morgan is a favorite scapegoat. If you ask who "they" are, who is manipulating the gold price to keep it down so they can close out shorts, J.P. Morgan almost always gets a mention.

If so, why would they put out an article giving the "case against gold" and then explaining why it's wrong, then closing with the following?

"In addition to hedging against short-term geopolitical risks, gold is a long-term diversifier. It’s an asset that can protect against inflation, outperform during drawdowns and reduce overall portfolio volatility given its relatively low correlation to other assets."

https://www.chase.com/personal/investments/learning-and-insights/article/tmt-february-thirteen-twenty-six?

Why would you put out something encouraging people to invest in gold if you are short and need to drive the price down to close out your shorts? Doesn't add up.

Maybe there's someone out there trying to manipulate the gold market, but it's too massive for anyone to really do it. It's always going to be volatile but volatility does not mean manipulation. Gold prices are driven by huge players (governments / banks) making strategic moves and by huge numbers of retail investors responding to increasing or decreasing fears of geopolitical instability / threats and fears of inflation. The smallest change in economic or geopolitical environment can drive many investors to buy out of fear or sell as fears reduce. Anyone trying to manipulate it is vulnerable to having it all blow up in their face, and the really big money institutions or governments who might possibly be able do that aren't likely to take that risk. They might buy or sell if they think it is overpriced or underpriced, but that's not manipulation, that's an investment decision based on the same kind of assessment we might make.

A smaller market might be manipulable. Gold is not.

So gold is down about 0.6% today. GDX is down about 0.9% today. GGP is up 0.33%. Why is GGP up when gold is down and other miners are down?

If that were reversed, if gold were up and GGP down, or if GDX were up and GGP down, we'd be hearing about how this share price is being manipulated, wouldn't we? "How can GGP be down if gold is up?" etc. The omnipresent and omnipotent "they" would be the guilty parties.

Maybe it's not manipulation by "they". Is that possible? Maybe it's just that a market consisting of many different people with many different situations, perspectives, goals, and risk tolerances has more interest in GGP today than it does in gold or a basket of other gold producers. Maybe on another day, Mr Market is more interested in gold than in GGP. No, couldn't be. It must be "them" doing it.

"Do investers understand how dividends work? And how they are set. First the simpletons who have never run a company!!! "

LOL. It's not a very good look to call people simpletons in a post with misspelled words. Please try to do better.

The way dividends work is not rocket science and does not require experience in running a company to understand. Anyone with a logical mind can work it out. Anyone with a logical mind and reasonable education (self-education works, too) in financial matters can learn to make good investments.

And lots of people who have run a company are lousy investors. And it's even possible for people who don't know how to spell the word to be either good or bad investors.

Good luck with your investing and your spelling -- but I do recommend you avoid calling people simpletons. It can get messy when you do that.

@SocialistB

Thanks for the response. I'm very happy with my life, even if an empty place will likely never be filled. Thanks for asking!

I no longer manage my own investments, except this one, and it's just for fun. When I did, I wanted every investment to have maximized return. I'd suggest if you want dividends, selling a small percentage of your GGP shares and investing in something that is paying dividends now. Otherwise, you are likely to feel some frustration. I don't believe GGP is particularly close to the dividend paying phase, though it may depend a little bit on how the board views other opportunities besides Telfer and Hav. If any of those look like big winners, expect money to flow towards pursuing those rather than to dividends -- and that's what they should do.

"But as companies scale, they eventually reach a point where: not every dollar can be reinvested at high returns"

This is true.

Seeing as we have significant assets in the ground that are going to take a lot of cash to get them out of the ground...

Seeing as we have neighbouring prospects owned by other companies that may be significant underground assets that we might consider acquiring, and that might take a lot of cash...

Seeing as it's going to take some cash to assess those prospects sufficiently to know whether they are worth acquiring / mining...

Seeing as, if we do acquire any of those prospects, it's going to take a lot of cash to develop the mines needed to get the assets out of the ground...

Then we could be a long, long way from reaching the point where dollars can't be reinvested at a high return.

This is not rocket science but it's worth stating:

If someone really wants dividends, they maybe should at least think about the possibility of investing in companies that are paying them, and then buy back in here if the time comes that GGP reaches that phase. There are SO MANY GOOD WAYS available for GGP to spend cash that no one should count on dividends happening in the very near future.

With the volatility of the gold price, people are trading it like crazy. They expect ups and downs, and they set stop losses to lock in their profits if a drop starts. Others have mental "stop losses" -- if they think a drop is starting they get out. It only takes a rumor to trigger stuff and it doesn't just happen with gold.

Between the Putin rumor, the better US jobs report (reduces chance of interest rate cuts), and AI fears driving markets down, it was enough to start the snowball rolling. All it takes is a little fear, well-founded or not.

POG will be back above $5K very soon, and GGP SP will recover quickly. As of today, it's just a little market panic. Maybe it will turn into a bigger market panic, but reality will eventually drive gold much higher.

Hi, Paddy, nice to see you! I agree. GDX and ASX100 are fine and (the former especially) have an impact, IMO, but increasingly identifying the gold in the ground, getting it out of the ground, and using that money to drive forward mine development to get more out of the ground is what's going to make this great story even greater. As that credibility grows, this SP has a long way to run.

@AL "Put it this way, if some junior explorer released an RNS saying 'here's an MRE for this massive NEW unexploited resource over the garden fence from the only processing plant in the region', they would be bagging and then some."

They would bag and then some because there are a lot of people who are looking for the next ten bagger, and those people aren't interested in an established miner. This discovery isn't going to turn a 5p share into an 80p share, and people who are interested in that kind of risk / reward scenario already know about GGP and bought in a while ago. It's a totally different company now.

@Paddy

"2. Possible ASX100 inclusion - we are comfortably in this category now, not sure what the nett benefit would be as we may be sold by some of the ASX200 tracker funds"

The ASX200 includes the top 200 companies. As such, we would still be in the ASX200 and still owned by those trackers.

There might be some midcap funds that would sell us once we move into the 100. We might still be in some small cap funds that would sell us if so. I thin it's unlikely to be significant selling.

"3. ASX100 inclusion should hopefully bring some more of the Aussie superfunds to the table, again not sure what the nett demand would be here."

I could be wrong but I doubt this factor is going to be particularly significant. The ASX100 trackers are very heavily weighted in the top ten companies. Non-tracker funds that focus on the top 100 companies may have already moved into GGP, and in fact might have contributed to the surge in price over the last several months.

Anything that results in institutions buying some shares, and thus takes them out of active trade, obviously supports the share price and is a good thing, but I personally doubt that the ASX100 inclusion is going to be a significant mover for us. I expect GDX inclusion to be much more impactful. I expect some front-running of that has already happened, but I don't know. I expect a lot of volatility (both ups and downs) with a little more stability after the GDX rebalance.

There's some truth in this. The "pummelled down brutally" came for very specific reasons.

There's lots of fear in the market over the AI bubble. I personally believe fear is overblown. Fiat currencies are a bubble, and when you look at what AI stocks are actually worth, and what the dollar is actually worth, it's probably reasonably balanced. But the fear is there.

So Microsoft had bad news and a huge drop. That triggered loads of stop losses and margin calls -- and fear / contagion for other shares, and it exploded across the market. So 1) a lot of cash had to come from somewhere to cover margin calls and 2) capital losses got locked in by stop losses. For tax reasons, a capital loss locked in is an opportunity to book an off-setting capital gain without a tax hit.

The Microsoft crash triggered other drops, in the tech sector especially, which I believe made people look to lock in some gains by taking profit and also look to get cash to cover margin calls. Where are you going to get those gains and that cash? The most obvious place to look is PMs which have been going crazy. Anyone who needed to liquidate to cover a margin call and had gold / silver / copper / platinum would have been giving it a long, hard look. Similarly, anyone with a chance to lock in gains tax free would have been looking hard at their PM holdings. Some of these people were going to need to rebalance, anyway. Many institutional portfolios have asset allocation rules that restrict how much they can hold in PMs or miners, and they may have been beyond or bumping close to those limits as the price of PMs has exploded.

So they sold PMs, to take gains tax free or to raise the cash they needed.

The market absorbed that. PMs got the test they needed (though driven by normal market dynamics, not conspiracy). They passed the test. As I write this, gold and silver are at yesterday's US close, platinum is only down 1%, copper is up 5%. Perhaps some people who decided to lock in gains for tax purposes saw an opportunity with the drop to get back in again. Perhaps others suffering from FOMO saw an opportunity to jump on the bandwagon. So recovery has already happened.

We'll head back up, I'm sure. The Microsoft fallout may give additional volatility for the next couple days. But gold will resume it's upward trajectory, and miners will go with it. I believe in the medium term that miners will surpass gold, before this runs its course, just like silver miners will surpass silver.

None of this really had anything to do with GGP or any other miners. It's just what the market does. And I believe GGP will be among the leaders among the miners. None of it has anything to do with ramping or "them holding it down" or anything like that. We're too big for that stuff to matter now. The story will be told by how much gold we find and how effectively we get it out of the ground. That story is a winner for us. We've been very lucky.