Member Info for TakingMyTime

@spoon, not being privy to all the data they used, I don't know whether the new quarantine was justified. I still lean towards "we're going to have to live with it" until proven that we can defeat it, and at this point, Sweden doesn't look that much worse than some other countries that did lock down.

Mostly agree about holiday makers, though. I am not opposed to people going on holiday right now. But grow up, people. If you go, you chose to take a risk. Everyone knew you might catch it. Everyone knew that an upsurge could result in quarantine when you come back. Take some responsibility for your own decisions.

I'm planning to travel later this year, I've bought the tickets, unless it means quarantine on arrival we'll go. But if I have to quarantine when I get back, well, I made that decision, I'm not going to gripe about it.

@schlemiel
Thanks for the hedging info. I had read that and forgot it. Since I hit the right side of 50 this happens more than it used to. Still can't find any announcement on it but maybe it was only announced in an annual report.

@Nige
Of course hedging makes sense. It's looks like it is going to hurt NCM this time but many times it pays off, and as you rightly say, as long as they produce the gold, they will still make a nice profit on it (just not as nice as it could have been if POG keeps upward).

in bragging about your trading exploits on this board, or any Internet board.

There's absolutely no reason for anyone to believe you. And even if they do believe you, what have you really gained?

Most people who believe you will think you were just lucky. Those who don't will think you are something different that my parents taught me not to say in public.

Thanks, SoS. Don't see that in their corporate announcements but assume it's true, would have to dig deeper.

All the more reason to get non-hedged gold from Hav running through, I guess!

Oh, and this:
"especially if the Havieron ore is not subject to the hedging that NCM have at Telfer"

The last NCM hedging of Telfer gold of which I am aware was announced in 2016 and ended in 2019. Have I missed an announcement?

In any event, it would be hard to see how a NCM agreement on their gold from the Telfer mine could be binding on a completely separate JV. Unless there are hard facts on this I would assume the hedging is a non-issue.

"would never ask a woman that question before any one attacks me"
You sexist (LOL)

@Paddy "The profit would then be split between the JV partners and as NCM would be the majority partner I sure they would want the profits paid to the JV to be a generous as possible."

That would surprise me. The toll processing fees will be paid 100% to NCM. The JV profits will be 70-75% NCM. The higher the fees the better for NCM. I expect there's already an agreed mechanism in place to determine the price, and I expect it's a good and fair price for both parties, but I don't think it will be cut-rate. No reason NCM would agree to that. The toll processing fees from Hav is what will keep the Telfer mine economical for longer.

As long as no one gets greedy the symbiosis here is phenomenal.

Paddy, thanks for coming back, great contributions this evening, but don't you still need a break? No burnout, please!

A. Paddy, you really find H&P's AISC estimate credible? The rest of their numbers seemed conservative but I've always felt dubious about that one.

B. BR, that post really ought to go on GGPHelp under "What is the expected AISC at Havieron?" All the disclaimers and stuff, no one knows, etc, etc. Have you defined AISC for your readers yet? I forget. But obviously, the cost of getting the gold matters almost as much as POG and how much gold there is.

C. An AISC of less than $500 blows up a lot of fag packet calcs.

D. Production within 12-18 months could blow up my spreadsheet.

E. Mickey, you slacker, when are you going to update your target price? LOL, I thought it was a joke and now I wonder if it's conservative.

@MDC1, to elaborate on Jerry's comment, the Cu is considered a by-product and so it's value will be deducted from the AISC. We might be able to get from those in the know a reasonable estimate of the cost to get the stuff out of the ground and processed. But no one yet really has a good estimate of how much Cu will result and so the amount that is to be deducted. So the AISC that counts is simply unknown, we are guessing wildly.

We also don't have a definitive statement as to how this is going to be mined. Lots of informed speculation, nothing absolute. That makes it hard to know the mining costs as well.

"Girlfriend says I'm a bit of a masochist. Bring it on. I'll pretend I'm Arnie or GF."

I don't think any of us want to know what your girlfriend pretends to do to Arnie or GF.

" He always said he'd make it into a billion pound company."
Here's hoping Scal makes him reconsider and aim higher :)

To avoid breaching copyright rules, I'll summarise.

Briefly, the Bloomberg article suggests that the POG could skyrocket due to a surge in high net worth individuals taking delivery of physical gold. Rather than taking out contracts that they then roll over, they are taking delivery of the gold at the end of the contract in unprecedented numbers.

The result is a gold shortage. A few months ago, we saw a shortage of oil storage with drastic market consequences. This time, we could be looking at a shortage of actual gold, which means they can't sell the contracts if they aren't sure they can deliver the gold. So demand for those who do have gold will soar, pushing the price higher.

Anyone who shorts could get squeezed horribly.

My thought: in the short term this could be very good for us. In the longer term, it might create a bubble that could pop rather spectacularly, especially if the economic upheaval turns deflationary rather than inflationary. I suspect the gold producers will be ok in either scenario, but there might be some risks in buying gold itself, or ETFs. There's a bubble building and it probably has a long way to go but it just might pop rather unpleasantly at some point in the future, so don't ride it too long. All IMHO.

Well, don't get me wrong, I like him, too, I think he's doing a great job and I think it's totally cool that he wrote that to Tig. But that's different from "trust". Too many people in the financial world know how to come off great for me to trust them just because they know how to play it right.

I don't trust him for that. I trust him because, so far, all the actions that I can see match the words. And the biggest action is to align his interest with ours by making so much of his compensation share-based (options). He's chosen to run the company that way and align the interests of all the key people with the interests of the investors. Not everyone in AIM (or elsewhere, for that matter) does that.

You ask me if I like someone, the way they come across is a big deal. You ask if I trust someone, the question is more whether their actions have earned trust.

"waow, weldone tig, this shows his commitment toward the PI. amazing!"

Well, not really. It shows he knows how to make PIs think he's committed to them. Maybe he is and maybe he isn't, but he at least knows the right things to say. A lot of execs you know they aren't interested in PIs at all. GH knows what PIs can do for him.

Nice touch, this, but this isn't the kind of thing that gives me confidence. What gives me confidence is 175 million shares in his and CB's hands. It's in their interests for shareholders to do well.

@Teddy "@TMT: WW will use the UK Govt as a last resort, he is and always has been anti- Govt bail outs"

I know that, and that's my view, too. But in this case Govt has shut down his business, and continues to hold it down. There comes a point even as a capitalist when you say Govt should pay for what they are doing to you.

I'm not saying he wants to do it but I suspect a govt loan is more appealing in this circumstance than RI. In my view, it should be.

Yeah, if someone is holding rather than trading, this is not really an issue.

Except, if the offer comes in now, I'd be concerned others might accept it even if it is too low.

I'll say, though, that if an offer came in and hadn't been recommended by the BOD, I'd buy all the way up to the offer price. Because I think an offer today would be likely to start a bidding war. The resource is that good and the SP relative to it is that low.

" If IAG needs to raise cash it will be an IP."

If IAG needs to raise cash they will borrow from the government, based on various EU governments breaking EU rules and propping up their airlines.

Should add, I know a thing or two about accounting but I am not an accountant and not familiar with Oz accounting rules at all, so there's a possibility I just posted complete tosh, and would love to be corrected if anyone really knows.

"That's what the MRE is for."
Partly depends on Aussie rules which might be different from ours but I think this is correct. It's possible Hav will be recorded as an asset in that they do own a share of the JV but the asset will be negligible as there is no proven resource of economical value as yet. It's one thing to know it is there and know it is economical, quite another to have enough evidence to report it as an asset on the books.

Very happy with both my NCM and GGP investments. I bought NCM on 27 May. Every share I have ever purchased has immediately dropped lower than my purchase price, at least for a day or two, but not NCM. I got it on the lowest day after my decision to buy, at the lowest price of the day. It is nice to be lucky for once, will probably never happen again.

Onward and upward!