Member Info for TakingMyTime

Sigh. So the semantics continue, so maybe actually using a dictionary is required. So we can quit debating what words mean, unless you want to say you are right and the dictionary is wrong.

Return:
"a profit on an investment."
https://www.lexico.com/definition/return (oxford)
"the profit that you get from an investment"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/return
"a yield or profit, as from labour, land, business, or investment"
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/return
"profit on money invested"
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/return_2

When you talk about "return on investment," it means (wait for it) "profit on investment." How does one calculate return on investment (profit on investment)? By using the amount invested in the denominator.

It's not "still actually a gain." It is "ALSO actually a gain." It's called both. On a non-dividend paying share, your gain is your return is your profit. It's all one and the same. And the profit percentage, as opposed to the profit margin, is based on investment cost, not on net proceeds.

Wikipedia actually has it right, it's in the first paragraph here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_return

And if you look at this, it actually defines profit percentage the way "everyone does call it profit."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_margin

"tmt - you need to drink lemonade when you all meet up - for your sake lol"

I'm a teetotaler. Too much family history.

(This was actually serious, BTW. Also no doubt shocking to some of you that I would write like I do when sober, but there it is.)

Totally disagree. If you bought in for less than 1p, have a celebration when you hit 10p. I bought in over 10p, I'll celebrate when it hits 50p and again at £1, £5, and £10. It's going to be a busy year, LOL.

@dave "Why are you guys organising a celebration party "
They've got 1000%+ investment profit to celebrate. ;)

"CTC Pure semantics"
The whole debate was pure semantics. That's what became so stupid about it. No one was actually making maths errors, they were just failing to recognise the proper labels which should be used when you used the different denominators.

"Any comment of the 2nd point "Has less than 1 year of cash runway""

Has less than 1 year before NCM buys 5% of Hav at market value.

@merc
"NCM will own 70%, unless they buy the optional 5%, and if they do that, i’d imagine they would take the full 30%"
They might WANT to buy the full 30%. The 5% will cost them an amount that will be determined by what is described in the JV. The other 25% will cost them an amount determined by what they are willing to pay and what GGP is willing to accept. That might be more or less expensive than the 5%, but probably more, maybe quite a bit more. GGP is obligated to sell the 5% but not the 25%.

As to your reasons NCM might pay a premium.
1. If Rio wants to pay more than what it is worth, there's no reason NCM should. The JV agreement certainly already dictates that all the ore goes through Telfer, whoever owns shares in it. NCM will be making some money at Telfer on that last 25% whoever owns it. It shouldn't matter to them whether it is GGP or Rio or the man in the moon who is paying them for processing that ore.

2 & 3. These have bearing on "what it is worth." The possibility of still further step-outs, for instance, is worth something. NCM might well pay something for that possibility. So would Rio or anyone else. And that possibility might significantly impact BBG's willingness to sell, too.

NCM is going to be doing the mining and processing the ore at Telfer, and they are going to get paid for doing those things by the JV. And they'll own 75% of the JV. They might well make an offer for the other 25% and it may be accepted but there's no reason for them to pay more for it than what they think it is worth. The buyer of the other 25% need not even be a miner. Could be a hedge fund, or a group of them.

"I get the rough gist, my question was more open on people's opinions about would we get a dividend and if yes, what do we think it could be."
Way too many unknowns to make a meaningful guess.

"So, even if we concluded that GGP's part is worth 1bn pounds, NCM could pay more than that because they'll have got the rest almost for free."

Being also an NCM shareholder I must ask why in the world NCM >would< do that even if they could? Why pay more than it's worth?

NCM will own 75%. GGP will have a share in a JV that's worth 25%. If GGP sells that share to someone else, almost certainly the JV will still exist, with the same terms. There's no reason why NCM would or should pay any more than anyone else for that 25% of the JV.

@Chippy " just be mindful that if it doesn’t ‘go to the moon’ that it will gradually increase , like it always has done."

Your definition of "gradual" must be different from mine, LOL. SP almost 10x what it was a year ago, 3x mid-March level. Quite a high percentage profit, I used to think.

@wasred
Perhaps when GGP comes good I can buy you a whole coffee shop.

The 12M buy was relevant, though UT, for three reasons.
1. It wasn't entirely fulfilled, so pretty much everyone knew they'd be coming back for more.
2. It took out resistance.
3. It put a big squeeze on any open short positions, and it was after hours so they couldn't do anything about it until Monday. So on Monday, they had to buy to close out their shorts.

Last night's really didn't have the same characteristics.

@wasred
LOL, brilliant. Now, please explain Scal to me.

NCM has just gone from 0% legal interest to 40%. What percentage increase is that, 40% or infinite? When they go back to 0%, will they have gone down by 40% or by 100%? Work out the percentage changes for GGP, in both legal ownership and beneficial ownership.

Then, provide an estimate of what percentage of lawyers will get angry at there being a disconnect between 'legal' and 'beneficial', and what percentage of lawyers will laugh, and say, 'Of course.'

Of course it makes a difference. Reduces your take on any future dividends or buyout of the company by about 3%.

Should always check contingent liabilities before buying.

@Lenz

"GGP would have enough funds to pay their share (25% ) of the mine development costs from the sale of the 5% of Hav at fair market value"

Thanks, that's not something I've heard before. Do we have clear statements on that from GGP, or is that reading between the lines?

SOS, it might come to a quite interesting decision.

If GH decides to hold onto Hav, they have to borrow loads of money, probably all resources go into funding the costs of mining it, until it starts to produce.

If, on the other hand, he decides to sell it, maybe for a big pile of cash and a small royalty percent (percent defined in the normal way for such deals, lol), then he has all the money he needs to go do his own drilling in Scal and wherever else he wants.

The latter may have some appeal. It means he can get going aggressively on Scal, where if he doesn't sell he may not have the money to really go after Scal.

And NCM? They may not want Scal to be delayed, either, but GH may not want to give them a big share. So how do you solve it? NCM buys GGP out of Hav entirely, or maybe they buy another 15%, taking GGP to only 10%. That might give them enough cash to pay a special dividend, fund their 10% of the cost of mining, and go get Scal rolling.

Lots of possible permutations here.

@SOS
You said, "GH indicated that we are going to become miners. I do not think this is posturing."

I don't think it is posturing, either, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't sell if he thought the price was right.

You said, "GH is going to push the SP as much as he can." If it makes no difference because we're definitely going mining, why would he do that? There are risks in him doing so.

It makes sense if he thinks there might be an offer made (by NCM or someone else), the higher the SP is, the more the offer would have to be. I think GH is fully aware that he's sitting on a big asset and that there are some big birds of prey circling who may want to pounce. That gives plenty of reason to push the SP, whether because he wants to sell for a higher price, or to make it easier to fight off a hostile buyer. I think he's pushing the SP, but I don't think it tells us anything about whether we'll be miners or not.

Finally, you said this: "Why would Sandeep spend 25% (those blinking percentages again) of the cost in billions of US$ of a Tier 1 GOLD MINE, when he has got a bargain for 75% of it?"
I think this one is pretty obvious -- the 75% at that bargain isn't going to be repeated. Some people here bought GGP for 1p, and later bought more for 8p. Why would they pay 8p when they got a bargain at 1p? Because they knew they weren't going to get the same 1p price again, and 8p still looked like a good value to them.

Same with Sandeep. He got 75% at a bargain. If he wants the 25%, he has to pay market price for it. The 75% is irrelevant, it's the 1p buy of GGP from last year. This year, if he wants to play, he has to pay 12p.

Does he think it's a good deal? Is it worth it to him to buy the other 25% at fair market value? Well, fair market value when it is in the ground is a lot less than fair market value when mined. So, he can buy it at fair market value in ground, dig it out, process it, and make the profit on that process. I'd suggest that might look very appealing to him.

Whether GGP would sell it to him would remain to be seen but it's not hard to see him wanting to buy that last 25%.

"Five guys named Mo, on a roof, singing 'Rio'. Where did the aliens come from!"

Those five guys all have an apple each from the same basket, too.

From where do aliens usually come?

@BottleRocket "Didn't they sing "Rio?""

Ok, she was dancing on the sand and these guys are on the roof. So Rio is NOT one of the five guys on the roof! We're getting closer!

Wait. According to the 2019 annual report, there were 3 non-director employees and 2 exec directors. That's 5. (Ignoring that one of them is a woman, I guess). They are looking over the edge of the roof. Rio is dancing down below, trying to look beautiful to draw their attention. Yes, I'm sure we've got it now.

@archways

You are 100% correct.