Member Info for Velo

The earnings could be what tips the edge to the market pulling a long face.

Hope for the best but prepare for the worst from the market reaction.

(Although Vod came in with a net loss and it's SP shot up on the day).

Although revenue was a little less than last year, that was expected and is more or less in line with what the market was expecting.

Net Profit earnings (after tax) have come in less than what the market was looking for @ £1b against guidance of £1.3b. Nonetheless net profit is well higher than last year - as it was the worst ever last year of only £855m.

No posts since early March?

Well looks like the market could be done with its little hissy fit against the SP

- Friday was the first day for the SP to both open and close fully, above the institutions fav trend - the 200 day sma.

Below it, and no SP can sustain life as we know it. Above it, and all is possible.

The SP actually turned to the upside during the second week of April and steadily continued rising throughout April. Can't read much into that as its meandered a bit since the big pullback in February. All that meandering occurred "whilst under the influence" of living below the mighty 200 day average. So false positives abound below the 200.

However, that 'bad' period looks to be over now.

The 200 day trend is still marginally rising but just about peaking now, at just below the SP in the 201p area - so for the immediate short term IMO the 201p area becomes the no-go area, otherwise . . . . :(

Optimistic. So, we'll see what comes .......

(Page 2 Concludes)

. . . There has not been such a run of 7 trading days consecutively of such ultra-low volume in the entire period from mid-September last year to this little run up to yesterday. So, what brought about the disappearance of the all the investors over that period? Several opinions offered in various posts on here, take your pick.

My main point is that it is standard old salt folklore that persistent low volume breeds tree conditions for manipulation of the SP for little outlay. Thinking I might be getting too long in the tooth I googled to see what the consensus opinion was to see if new explanations now rule the day. Well Google’s AI assistant pooped up and after giving the usual considerations to lack of liquidity etc., it saved the most damning to the last of the list and said (quote}:

======

“ When a stock's trading volume is significantly lower than its historical average, it can suggest several things about its share price. Low volume can indicate a lack of investor interest or indecisiveness, potentially leading to temporary price increases or drops that may not reflect broader market trends. It can also mean the stock is less liquid, making *price manipulation easier* and increasing volatility.

Here's a more detailed breakdown: "

====

- It then lists the above in detail, but to save space will jump towards the end and it says:

=======

“ Reduced Liquidity and Potential Volatility:

Stocks with low volume are less liquid, meaning it can be harder to buy or sell large quantities without significantly impacting the price.

This can make the stock more susceptible to *price manipulation* by a few large traders.

With fewer buyers and sellers, the price may be more volatile, meaning it can swing more significantly up or down. “

=====

However, if you prefer a more only a storm in a teacup explanation then consider its final summing up -

=====

“ 4. Other Factors:

Low volume can also be a temporary phenomenon, perhaps due to market participants being out of the market for a few days, or buyers waiting for a lower price before entering the market.

It's important to consider the overall market conditions and the specific company's situation when interpreting low volume.

In summary, low volume can suggest that a stock is less liquid, potentially more volatile, and that there may be less investor interest or commitment behind its price movements. It's crucial to analyse volume in conjunction with other factors, such as the overall market trend and the company's fundamentals, to make informed investment decisions.

=====

Well, the overall trend is bullish, and today’s volume looks like it’s bang on for closing the day at historic normal volume, it’s already over 36 million and it’s not even mid-day yet. So maybe Monday will confirm and bring further change - but which way? - As the SP is still looking bearish as I post this before mid-day?

(Page 1 of 2)

- The average daily volume since mid-September ‘24 to half a dozen days ago (April 14th) has suddenly disappeared down a plug hole to practically non-existent by comparison to the longer term average - which means in a market of ultra-low volume, the reliability of the SP is highly questionable: there were minuscule buyers and minuscule sellers from 14th April up to yesterday,

.....which means the smallest amount of daily volume can now affect the SP disproportionately and dramatically.

The question is where have all the buyers and sellers gone? And why have they gone?

Today so far there’s been another dramatic change - the volume looks as if it’s returning to the more normal long-term average of the last 7 months or so, but today it is genuinely bearish.

Years ago, I learned that when a stock’s volume drops away to extremely low volume compared to its average, it allows conditions where SP manipulation can occur for very little effort and the SP is easy prey to manipulation. Was going to post this over the past week but got busy elsewhere however, right now, today and only today, since the severe drop in volume commenced the volume is looking like it’s returning to within acceptable normal longer-term averages; but so far, it’s bearish. So, if the low volume did let easy manipulation occur is today’s bearishness the true effect of shaken shareholders?

I’ve done all my topping-up to average down months ago but if the SP drops below my average I am going to add if the (panic?) continues. So maybe it all ends today and the trap is sprung and the SP reverts to the prior bullish trend next week? And my further top-up chance goes down the plug hole too?

Volume averages - April 11th saw one of the highest day’s volumes of this year at 219 million shares turned over. Also, March 31st saw similar high volume of 215 million. However the longer term averages (since late last year when volumes returned to the record 2020 levels) is circa 83 million per day over the last 50 days, by 11th April (It had fallen to roughly 72 million per day at the beginning of the week due to the impact of the ultra-low volume that commenced on the 14th April.

So, what had the low volume since 14th April up to yesterday dropped down to? About 2 million per day with only 660,000 on 15th April. The rough average of 14th to yesterday, as a broad eyeball estimate was about 2 million per day.

There has not been such a run of 7 trading days consecutively of such ultra-low volume in the entire period from mid-September last year to this little run up to yesterday. So, what brought about the disappearance of the all the investors over that period? Several opinions offered in various posts on here, take your pick.

Continues >

Ahh yes, thanks. Can see that now. Does that mean his "work" here is done now?

Mis-clicked trying to speed-access one of my holdings and up came this thing – CapAI. Never heard of it before!

Intrigued, searched online for it briefly. Was it formerly Dukemount Capital before? The owner of that was a real estate guy called unbelievably Andrew Crucifix. Is he still in the background of Capai? Sounds like some sort of devil worshipper with a surname like that!

Judging by the demonisation of each other's posts on here - are you all a cult/sect? Is this where you hide out?

What the hell have I stumbled in to? (Feel like a character in a film pushing a door open to a dark cellar with the watching audience clasping their faces mumbling: Don’t go down there!

Should I phone the police and report you all (in one giant green bin wagon?)

Anyway, is there a central place of collected info on this new set-up? Did find a new 15 min video interview with Professor Ronjon Nag in relation to his appointment to Capai on Youtube - only released 5 days ago. So, you all must have seen it, yes?

He comes across as quite decent and jovial (doesn’t mean he's not a devil worshipper) he’s already devised a digital twin of himself in AI and says when he checks, it answers and speaks, responding exactly as he would reply himself, if he were present. Ronjon came across as full of ideas.

The presenter went on about AI digital twins of deceased parents etc., Ronjon joked about the presenter saying: How do I know you’re real and not an AI digital twin?

Did I see the presenter flounder for a brief moment? If so, then ahh yes, he must therefore be a human :)

So, unless I hear to the contrary, you’re all disciples of Andrew Crucifix and are devil worshippers/vampires/werewolves or some sort of evil wife swapping sect with a common interest that unites you by way of stock market investing?

.

Received the latest market guidance update forecasts a week or so back, that followed on from the updated guidance that was issued after the H1 trading update. So, they don’t change that many times during the year, whatever the latest implications some may go on to calculate.

I’ve come to trust them over the years as general-media analysts writing up their take on events often include the same figures in their own analysis, (saw one in my email box referring to the then current earnings for 2025 year of £102m, which was what I was seeing. I mention the foregoing, because there’s only 3 analysts covering GGP (as far as I know). So not a huge consensus to trust really.

Anyway, two things - Earnings for the two years ‘25 & ‘26 have both been revised upwards.

However, Revenue is a bit strange though, with Revenue for ‘25 reduced from £411m down to £395m

- but with ’26 revenue well up from £540m increased to £608m

However, ‘25 Net Profit (as said) has still been increased a little from £102m up to £105m.

And ’26 Net Profit has been increased substantially up from £150m to £169m

Would imagine that those who read that about the Revenue, will mostly 100% disagree as too low :)

But those are the figures I’m using for the P/E ratios that follow on from this data. And -

I start with 2025 and pumping in the latest consensus guidance updates into the spreadsheet equates to -

Earnings of £105m with a closing SP of 11p that’s a = P/E 13.7 (was 14.7 on the old lower earnings).

Things perk up - a lot, for year ending ‘26 though with

Earnings of £169m and the same closing price of 11p = P/E 8.5

(I’ve used ‘reported’ EPS earnings) as the usually more preferable ‘normalised’ earnings EPS, deduct things like Depreciation and Amortisation & stock options + making the P/E look much worse (higher).

Just don’t think normalised EPS will be that accurate as there’s only the first profitable H1 to hand. Investors need a full first year of earnings to trust normalised EPS metrics.

I see my own subscription package provider is quoting a forward PE of 22.4 using that normalised EPS method. Is it any wonder the SP is no rush to true value when all around the Internet GGP’s valuation is already showing the P/E in the 20’s ?

Some have highlighted that the Aussie gold miners are averaging mid 25’s P/E.

So, my view of a modest P/E 13.7 allows more scope for SP appreciation in this year

- And should ‘26 only come in with the earnings I’ve shown, then a screamingly low P/E of 8.5 is calling out for an SP re-evaluation.

I bet there’s others out there saying: Nah, earnings will be much higher than what I’m showing here, making the potential for a higher SP valuation even more pressing (if the full year backs up to others perceived reality).

Summary:

Revenue for ’25 =£395m

Net Profit ’25 =£105m

Revenue for ’26 = £608m

Net Profit ’26 = £169m

Yes, I agree Speedy. My post was more of a wistful what-if, comparison purely against price only.

On forecast earnings etc., I will have the latest valuation using updated market data forecasts - coming up maybe another day, or might squeeze it in today. (Most posts on here are using what-if calculations as each non-RNS news is released). For reference none of the data will be my opinion as will be using market guidance figures only to update the PE ratios.

A quickie on how I’m dealing with this 11p area hurdle – as there will be similar occurrences throughout as the SP rises through the steps up the staircase - as does every other stock on the stock market.

I did expect some issues around the v low 11p area, with a more significant one at the circa 11.5p area.

However, by the low 11P area (I mean no more than circa 11.1/11.2) so when it reached only as far as as 11.3p I had to consider - Was that the 11p low or was that the more problematic 11.5 area exerting its influence?

It will clear 11.5p eventually and as long as it then messes around/consolidates between 11.6 and 12, I will be more than happy enough, however long/or longer it takes to clear the upper 11’s entirely.

The reason? I expect smoother sailing after mid 11’s all the way to circa 13.5p. Why 13.5p after the mid 11’s as the next prolonged stay over?

Because mid 11’s is only the very first step on the stairway upstairs and the second step lies in another ‘significant’ area in the 13.5 tree-shake area. There are numerous other ‘significant areas’ in plain sight higher still, for anyone to see, but will bite my tongue until mid 11’s is dealt with, and see if progress to mid 13’s is uneventful by comparison to date :)

=======

.

- If time today, will also post further on new updated market guidance expectations data, that have been issued to the market recently. So will post those and calculate the PE ratios based on the new data which generally is way below what has been posted on here by others, so far this year.

That’s the forecast data from the in-house broker’s analysts that form market guidance. Which means my PE ratio’s will likely be the lowest anywhere making GGP appear more under-valued than by other source…. :)

Got a couple of posts, so will pop this one up first whilst have the time, as have other views than what follows on why there are issues around this 11p area.

I take it as read that when the SP achieved its historic ATH of 38p or so, back in 2020 that in hindsight that 38p was too early and thus it was regarded as a bubble price, ie., the SP got ahead of itself.

Is that what’s colouring posters thoughts with sentiments revolving around the apparent slower than expected current SP performance - when greatly increased forward trading results are being anticipated and accepted by the market/analysts/ holders et al?

One thing to consider why the market is using slow-moving lead-filled boots is to take into account the dilution of shares in issue today compared to the shares in issue back in 2020. Is dilution weighing on the markets mind? How about this -

Shares in issue today = 13,079,294,602 billion ie., 13.08b

Shares in issue back in 2020 = 3,760,206,631 billion ie., (3.76b)

When the 4.8p offer completed, the SP fell from circa 7p down to 5p and analysts attributed that portion of the past 5 years SP decline, directly as a result of the massive share dilution and was referenced so by analysts/media.

That being the case, how does that ‘bubble’ price of 38p compare when the dilution is accounted for; here’s my take on it -

If today’s 13 billion+ shares in issue, is used as a ratio (full figures used are below) to take that 38p into account then if the same sentiments that applied back in 2020 were applied today then the SP would have to be 132.18p today just to compare directly like for like in shares issued with 2020.

- However, if we accept that 2020 was a bubble ATH price, then the same ratio reduces that 38p back then, to an SP now, wait for it, of …. 10.92p today !

Coincidence? Figures used are below (spreadsheet went to more than half a dozen decimal points but rounded to 2 decimal places mostly for posting clarity)

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Shares in issue today = 13,079,294,602 billion ie., (13.08b)

Shares in issue back in 2020 = 3,760,206,631 billion ie., (3.76b)

Therefore revealed from above difference is = 3.478 ratio

ATH SP back in 2020 = 38p

Which used against 2020’s SP brings it’s equivalent today of 132.18p

However used against that 2020 SP, then in reverse the dilution brings today’s SP down to 10.92p solely due to the share dilution.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Does that offer a way to explain the ‘slow’ SP appreciation by the market currently?

Oh!

:) :) :)

LOL!

Not referencing the ETF in your post's header then ? My mistake.

Had some horse racing software back in the day. Didn't do to badly but more than half the time it didn't like the odds and would flash up - not suitable.

Would have persevered but only thing is had to cull the data from the Racing Post , loads of it for each horse and the history of the jockey too and would take me hours, and hours, so got fed up of it. Donkey's year's old software. It resurfaced the other week as was clearing out prior to a house move, but in the bin it went. It was from the Amstrad PCW days :)

Used to love listening to that old pre- PC computer whirring and whirring for yonks before finishing it's deliberations and spitting out the results.

You could feel the effort it was putting in :)

" I’m in Red, f**k it… "

Don't understand?

- What in GDXJ? How'd you manage that?!?

From Feb '24 it commenced a bull run that has bent the prior 3 year downtrend into a bullish uptrend that is still in force to this day.

Don't understand, apart from a huge pullback at the back end of '24 it never shifted the long term trend off course. There's been no signal to sell.

Besides the SP is still above a very nice rising 200ma day trend, it hasn't given you permission to sell.

What am I missing?

. . . before hitting the road tomorrow for a week or so oop north, so:

Element1 @ 0.31am last night:

“ Velo - I think it's really hard to try value Greatland right now . . . . . etc., etc., . . . ”

- A very pertinent post. What can I say other than; I concur.

- - - - - - - -

Only just realised, same poster Element1 @ 10.16am –

- Enjoyed your 60 years of gold history post. I’m busy for a week or two from tomorrow onwards, but when I get back, have you got the actual year periods fixed in your mind?

I have access to 55 years of gold price data on my charts/screen [part of my subscription package] and (ie., From 1980 to the 2001 dotcom crash era were two decades of slow loss by a thousand cuts of value for gold holders; was that when Nixon came off the gold standard reserve?) or was your post more a copy and paste helpful/general info piece?

If you haven’t got the period dates fixed in your mind, I won’t question your findings as don’t have the time myself right now.

For instance, I’m not a gold bug, but my belief is that gold is a good harbour during years of inflation but not so reliable in wars.

The Feb ‘22 invasion of Ukraine and the POG although volatile, retraced until near to the end of ‘22 as gold fell badly. It attempted to recover from then, and although as said, volatile, it wasn’t until the calendar had moved to the end of ‘23 (although '23 was an improvement on '22) that the record break out in gold commenced - showing a clean pair of heels and has continued since. So gold was not a good investment during the initial 2 years (almost) of that war. And after that - did it then rise only because inflation/ interest rates took off?

Lots of notable events in gold since 1970 (can’t access further as my general charting subscription package won’t allow it, but have the DOW from 1900 and the S&P500 from 1925). Most stocks in the UK I can get data on, but only to as far back as 1980’s or thereabouts.

PS. I put my own devised long term trends to work on the Gold periods since 1970 to date, and they did signal when to get out and when to get back in. (My problem has been in my prior lack of discipline in obeying them).

However, intrigued by the summation in your post of:

“ 1) there's a time to hold gold. There's a time to hold stocks. Depending on the cycle.”

PP.S: Around circa 2014 read a piece by an economics professor who said that the price of a goat bought today (2014) in gold, is about the sane amount of gold needed to buy a goat in ancient Greece, thus intimating that gold marches to inflation's tune.

"Let’s say GGP next financial year earnings are projected 350m. Current market cap is 1.25b"

------------

No let's not :) Because next year's projected earnings are for £150m.

So still a year or two away from that. Of course once this year closes in June next year's projected earnings will get revised, but that's some going if you have data to suggest it will be double and then some.

Bit of clarity, from –

“ . . . . All the textbooks say just divide the shares outstanding (13,079,294,602) by the Earnings Per Share (Earnings for ‘25 are given as £102m)…”

-----------------

To –

. . . . All the textbooks say just divide the Earnings (Earnings for ‘25 are given as £102m) by the shares outstanding (13,079,294,602)

That will reveal the Earnings Per Share.

Now divide that EPS figure into the SP.

The result is the P/E ratio.

(Part 2 concludes)

. . . . All the textbooks say just divide the shares outstanding (13,079,294,602) by the Earnings Per Share (Earnings for ‘25 are given as £102m). I did that and got a wholly different result to Google’s AI, Stockopedia (And Simply Wall Street for that matter) - of P/E 11.85

P/E 11.85 is below the Industry averages of wherever you derive your data and the lowest I‘ve yet seen, And fits with the ‘transformative’ label mentioned by SD. After all if the on-line P/E ratio’s merely equate to the average of other stocks in its industry how can the SP grow if the on-line fundamental data says it’s already fully valued against the forward £102m earnings, that the market is expecting this June? (RNS publishing the full results later in November).

So a high P/E ratio on an SP of just 9.125p doesn't seem right, as earnings are those for the big year end forecast.

Only one thing though. Just one little niggly thing - I’ve calculated it. So not confident. It doesn’t exist anywhere on the Internet.

However, if GGP is undervalued then that P/E 11.85 gives the SP room to grow, without fears of the SP running too far ahead as in 2020.

From that P/E 11.85 it means to get my average holding price valuation that 11.85 only has to rise to P/E 16 in one account & P/E 18 in the other.

And for those hung up at circa SP 20p, then the P/E only has to rise to P/E25.9

But I could be way off the mark in all this.

Was going post a link with a P/E calculator but it keeps disappearing because I’ve used up my free attempts and wants me to sign up. Must be more on-line. However no calculator needed as it’s a straightforward calculation.

All you have to do is pump in data that you trust to be reliable. That’s the biggie - is the base data reliable?

So, I’m seeing a P/E 11.8 ratio for an SP of 9.125p - derived from ‘reported’ EPS - ergo; GGP is, as expected, undervalued.

But not if (yet to catch up) online data is used.

Got lost for hours on Saturday in attempting to value the true P/E ratio based on the market guidance for the full year ending in June. However, the results were confusing so went back to basics and followed textbook procedure in DIY research mode and came up with a P/E ratio that ‘feels’ right, but exists no where else on the Internet, so, but first..

The other day I posted the market guidance £Revenue/earnings that apply to GGP for trading year ending ‘25 and the following year ‘26. One poster used the earnings in that guidance and applied a ratio of P/E 25 to post he was satisfied with the expected result. Another poster said the industry average was more like P/E 15 so to trim back calculating to such a high level. I posted later that I too was seeing the industry average as almost P/E 15 and wondered where the P/E25 was obtained from. The poster sharing his view of P/E 25 listed metals mining stocks only, that comprised that result.

As the Industry average I used, tallied with the mid teens of the 2nd poster, I concluded we were both using the LSE standardised Industry metrics from the ‘Metals and Mining’ Industry which is also includes other stocks that are a little different to pure Gold miners, such as: “ Manufacturers, extractors and refiners of chemicals, minerals, precious metals, steel, aluminum, forest products, and construction and other raw materials.” So no wonder there was such disparity. Everybody was correct depending on which base data is used.

The London Stock exchange which derives it’s metrics from the Russell Group also revealed the mid teens (P/E 16) as the industry average in which GGP inhabits. But that was before the SP closed the weekend at 9.125p

As My data for GGP shows that this weekend (with the SP at 9.125p) the forward P/E ratio is now @ P/E 25. That suggests the current SP of 9.15p is fully valued for the year end result and further more, with the LSE in similar industry averages to myself (I use Stockopedia industry average of now P/E 16 the same as the LSE).

Summary:

At first glance if you accept the current industry average of P/E16 then the SP now pushes the year end to a forward P/E 25 (in Stockopedia) and is overvaluing the SP at 9.125p against averages.

I don’t think 9.125p is either overvalued against Industry averages nor fair value based on the first posters valuation that gold miners are averaging P/E 25.

So set about calculating my own. First off there’s two EPS ratio’s to choose from.

“Reported” EPS and “Normalised” EPS. I prefer Normalised EPS because it strips out one-off entries, so Normalised gives a more even progression. Stockopedia gives EPS normalised that is really too low (IMO) and thus results in showing the current high P/E25 this weekend.

All the textbooks say just

Oops - Part 2 follows >

Live price is currently 9.5p

If the day closes no less than 9.6p I will be more than happy. Bit if turbulence around the 10p area and not guessing how long that might take. However on my personal stuff I'm seeing less agro between 10 and 11p. Not suggesting that 11p will arrive quickly, it's just that I have a series of prior highs in my sights that must be overcome - or else consolidation and rest can occur. That will happen at some point. Just want to see how far the SP gets before digging in for some R&R in between trading updates.

Typo!

Sorry Meant MH01 not ME01

tsk!