"TMT, I thought that you were going to answer your own question. The reason why they want the sp higher is that if someone wants to buy ggp they will have to pay a high price, and a higher price if the sp is itself higher at the start of the process. You won’t get 30p if the shares are trading at 9p. You might if they are trading at 18p."
That's one likely explanation. Other possibilities:
A) they are willing to sell their share of Hav to NCM, but don't want to sell the entire company. A higher SP helps convince NCM to "settle" for buying Hav alone.
B) Rio is on the prowl, they don't want to sell to them, so a higher SP makes the defence easier.
C) GH really, really likes my wife and since she bought in he wants her to make a lot of money.
D) some other reason I haven't thought of.
One of these is not like the others.
And the others, it seems to me, whichever one it is, are all good news for shareholders. The only way it would be bad new for shareholders is if actually they are starting to think Hav isn't that great after all, and they want to pump up the price and offload some of their own shares before word gets out. Since I don't think that's any more credible than C) above, I'm convinced that the recent emphasis on raising the share price is good news for long term holders.
NCM was at 12.29 on 13/3, they are at 19.89 now. That's up 60% in two months.
Hav is very, very big for a company the size of NCM, hugely profitable. It's beyond immense for a company like GGP. NCM has market cap of around £14Bn, GGP £300M. If NCM makes £1.5Bn out of Hav, that's great, it's about 10% of their market cap, a really, really nice boost. If GGP makes £500Mn out of Hav, it's more than their entire market cap.
It's like if I make £500K on an investment, it's life-changing. If Warren Buffet makes the same amount, he shrugs and says, 'That's nice.'
LOL, just checked and this is the worst performing share in my wife's and my portfolios today, and the one that has us the most excited.
A lot going on behind the scenes. There always is, for a company like this. You don't actually say that unless you want to pump the price. This interview was full of statements to pump up the price. Which fits what we saw last week, too.
Why are they trying to get the price higher? Not to issue more shares to raise capital. Surely not to sell their own shares. Not so private investors can cash out and take profits (that doesn't benefit the company particularly). So why?
Maybe they are just excited about the opportunity and how things are going, and want to spread the news. But that's not necessary for their investors, their investors are already excited. So what's the reason? If we knew that, we might know something important.
Maximise shareholder value
Sell the 5% to cover their costs
Looks like we hold till mining chaps. this is going to rerate to stupid amounts eventually"
Maybe. But if he wanted to sell, he'd be saying the exact same thing. He wouldn't be saying, "Oh, we want to sell." He'd be playing hard to get to maximise the buyout price.
Are they doing anything that would constitute an advance in science, and which has uncertainty such that an expert wouldn't already know what to do? Or are they using established techniques? The former is eligible for R&D, the latter isn't. The rules are pretty explicit on that.
"Looking for gold" isn't an advance in science, it's been around thousands of years. It's how they are doing it, and whether they are doing it in a new way not done before, that could constitute R&D for tax purposes.
"Will people be up for queuing for 6 hours waiting for results before going on holidays?"
For a weekend in Paris? No. For a week in America or a fortnight in the Caribbean? Sure, if that's what's required.
Would you give up a long-awaited week-long holiday just because you didn't want to wait six hours at the airport? Buy yourself a good book or book into an airport lounge and have a nice snooze while waiting.
Oh, and make me pay for the test, too? Well, let's see. A fortnight for two in NY is going to cost, hotel, meals, transportation, something like £7-8K, maybe? Am I going to be bothered by paying a few quid for the test? Not likely.
Theoretically they could pull a dividend at the last minute. A lot of companies did after the shutdown hit. Practically, there would have to be major (bad) new events happening to justify it or you lose credibility with your investors.
For instance, PSN declared a dividend which hadn't been paid before the shutdown, and they pulled it. Some investors certainly weren't fans of the decision, but most understood that a housebuilder that can neither build nor sell houses needs to conserve its funds, and that if the lockdown had been known in advance, no dividend would have been declared.
For BP to pull their dividend after declaring it, they'd really need to have something new and very significantly negative happen.
@944 "I do apologise, what I was trying to say was. Newcrest will want all the gold that they get out of Hav."
Of course. I would like to have my neighbour's car, it's better than mine.
But, I suspect if I asked to buy it from him he'd want more for it than I'd want to pay.
If GGP said, "Here's the other 30%, give us $1," they buy. If it's "Give us $10bn" they probably don't buy.
It doesn't matter what Newcrest wants, everyone knows what they want. It's what they are willing to pay and what GGP is willing to accept. And, if there's no agreement, would they attempt a hostile takeover?
The latter seems unlikely but may be part of why GGP engaged H&P, to try to get the SP up to better defend against a hostile takeover.
"sage I was trying to take him and caitylin etc seriously for a while but its like having a conversation with a drunk in the pub."
You're better filtering them. Then we don't have to find out what they said by reading your responses to them. :)
Not seen any evidence that GGP claims it.
GGP would be eligible as a UK company.
Whether their projects would qualify, I don't know. The rules can seem rather restrictive: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/corporation-tax-research-and-development-rd-relief
Yeah, there's injustice in society. So what? Your lockdown, if anything, is making it worse.
The elites aren't being hurt by the lockdown. Most of them are still being paid. The politicians and the civil servants and the BBC all have gold-plated pensions, it's not their pensions that are being destroyed. Every journalist writing a scare-mongering article or heart-breaking article about someone who died from covid19 is on full salary. The lockdown isn't hurting them.
It's the people who work hard and don't have massive reserves who are being crushed by the lockdown. You can't get away with both whingeing about the lockdown being lifted and then spouting class warfare. It's working people and small family businesses that are being destroyed here. The lockdown needs to be lifting, fast. Yes, it will cost lives. So will keeping it, probably in the long run far more.
So, duster, you want to keep quarantine and no doubt lockdown. First wave has cost 400 lives under the age of 60. Do you know how many lives the lockdown is costing? Might think about that.
Suicides. Domestic murders. Alcoholism and drug abuse, which leads to more deaths. Deaths due to delayed medical treatment. Deaths due to people not seeking medical care due to the lockdown. How many of those are acceptable? How come those lives matter less?
Clear correlation between poverty and shorter life-span, and the lockdown is inflicting massive unemployment and poverty. Some of that poverty will be permanent. People in their 50s & 60s may be unable to start again. Employers will have their pick and they'll pick younger. Older people who lose their businesses don't have enough years to build another one. Many of these people will live out their lives in poverty, and some will die earlier than they would have.
Don't be so quick to claim the moral high ground over keeping restrictions going. Look at the average life-span in countries with strong economies vs countries with weak ones. These restrictions are killing people and will for years to come.
That brief document refers to the Ground Rules, which are here:
"With regards housing, yes demand for a roof is there, but we have already witnessed government wants an ever bigger share of the pie."
Well, you make some good points about housing, to which I could respond, but I probably shouldn't have started that conversation here, there's enough here without it. If you want to discuss on the PSN board, glad to do so.
"I think we are heading into a perfect storm. Trouble whichever way you look!"
I think so, too. Governments have decide that the way to respond to the pandemic is to destroy massive amounts of wealth. Whether necessary or not, I don't know.
"Gold - traditionally a safe haven, but known to be prone to political diktat - confiscation, nationalisation of mines, taxation etc etc."
But presumably this is not likely to be an issue with this investment, and that's why when my wife said she wanted to do this, I went along. There's so much risk in this kind of investment but this one doesn't have the same kind of political risk that a lot of others have. If inflation eats all our other investments, it won't eat this one, and this one isn't going to be nationalised, I guess.
I'm also in BP quite a bit now in part because I think oil is an inflation hedge and I don't think BP is extremely vulnerable to nationalisation. Also in PSN because no matter what we'll have a housing shortage in this country and PSN builds more affordable homes than some others do. Most people may not see PSN as a defensive investment but it might help counter some of those things you described.
FWIW. It's hard for me to picture a world where GGP isn't a good investment if there's as much gold at Hav as we think, even if everything else turns into a dud.