The information on this Website is not reliable and not intended to provide tax, legal, or investment advice. Nothing contained on the Website shall be considered a recommendation, solicitation, or offer to buy or sell a security to any person in any jurisdiction.
CEO.CA members discuss high-risk penny stocks which can lose their entire value. Only risk what you can afford to lose.
@Goldfinger@kjm US has the ability to spend more than any other country, deepest capital markets, and global reserve currency. And yes, I get what you're saying. My comment was related more to global influence.
@kjm@rangerbentman yep China would have to be offered a big carrot to go along with that. NK could still be run as a communist country if that is what they want but need to get rid of the ruling family.
@kjm$FF is getting hammered because funds in the know are front running the big gdxj dump. By June 17, gdxj has to sell around 50mil shares which represents 21 days worth of selling on an average volume basis.
anonymous@kjm$GDXJ$FF$TGZ Regarding the GDXJ re-balance...
a number of comments on the various CEO.ca threads are making it seem as though the fund manager (VanEck) is going to dump portions of certain ETF holdings by a certain date (or within a short-term time frame). Could you provide a link to any official documentation which supports that contention?
For background, the $GDXJ ETF seeks to replicate, as closely as possible, the MVIS Global Junior Gold Miners Index.
If you read the information on the VanEck website, you will see that it is the rule change for the index that is being implemented on June 17th. There is nothing I have read which suggests that the fund manager of the ETF must then complete concentrated sales of the necessary securities within a set number of days.
Some writers on the internet have taken a look at the position sizes for securities that could be subject to selling and compared this against average daily volume, in an effort to calculate the minimum number of days that would be necessary to complete the selling.
But there is a big difference between making that calculation and then assuming that the fund managers will seek to eliminate the positions in the minimum possible period of time. They are not crazy and will not necessarily dump large numbers of shares into limited bids.
Isn't it possible that the fund managers will complete the rebalance over an extended time frame, to avoid adding additional pressure to the security prices? Is it also possible that the companies who will be impacted, could look to arrange for block purchases by interested parties, to partially or fully off-set the upcoming sales?
I have no particular information as to how the fund manager will complete this re-balance (or whether certain companies will try to facilitate work-arounds). But I think these alternatives are worth considering, rather than assuming the worst.
anonymous@kjm$FF$TGZ that's my point -- you are linking to an opinion piece on the re-balance, rather than anything official from VanEck. There is nothing I have seen from them which suggests that they've got to sell 'x' number of shares of $FF by June 17th (or any other specific date).
For disclosure, I do not own $FF but do hold shares of $TGZ, which is also likely being impacted by fears regarding the upcoming re-balance. We will learn soon enough how it all works out. Have a good night.
anonymous@kjm$FF$TGZ Yes, I have seen the charts regarding speculation on the additions and reductions.
Following is from the VanEck website (and their discussion of the Index Rule Change):
"Certain of the information provided above for MVIS Global Junior Gold Miners Index reflects an application of the announced index rule change to data as of March 31, 2017. Given that such rule is not currently in effect for the MVIS Global Junior Gold Miners Index and will only come into effect as of June 17, 2017, the actual composition of the MVIS Global Junior Gold Miners Index on such date may vary significantly from the information presented herein."
That means that the fund manager is not yet able to determine what the revised composition will look like.
And again, with regard to the number of days to complete sales -- that is based on average daily volume and not (from anything that I have read so far) a requirement to complete sales within a compressed time frame.
@DJSDepends how you define patience, @kjm. Lots to like about $GQC. Here are a few: As @MiningCatalyst noted above, it's seen by many as a takeover candidate. For under $100M MC, it has an existing resource with an NPV of over $200M, and it just hit a new discovery hole with 60 metres of pretty shallow polymetallic rock that comes in at over $1000/tonne. And it has many other promising VTEM anomalies in the same trend that it is actively drilling right now. I see excellent value here with a bunch of upcoming catalysts. Will most of them disappoint? No doubt. Will some of them start to show that this area has a large resource across it? I'm obviously betting they will.