Blackrock World Mining Share Discussion Threads

[brucie5] 20/4/2016 16:24

nav 276. Steady today, but with underlying shares moving ahead.

[brucie5] 20/4/2016 09:08

acg 19 Apr'16 - 17:10 - 1786 of 1786 0 0

Mmmm just checked, it isn't exactly a comparator is it? MKT CAP of £18m and full of highly speculative geared plays. I love risky shares but I think that's even too risky for me. Good Luck though.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPM hardly more risky than holding any pm minder, especially since it restricts itself largely to the anglo-saxon economies, apart from FRES. It's been a splendid investment for me so far this year.

I think BRWM may also have some participation in the PM bull, given it's high involvement in gold (22%) and pm and stones (14.3%). Then we've got the blue chip industrial miners like BLT and RIO roaring ahead. Evy Hambro also runs the Gold and General Fund, so knows his stuff.

[racg] 19/4/2016 17:10

Mmmm just checked, it isn't exactly a comparator is it? MKT CAP of £18m and full of highly speculative geared plays. I love risky shares but I think that's even too risky for me. Good Luck though.

[racg] 19/4/2016 17:06

Never heard of GPM, what is the point you are making, I cannot discern.

[davebowler] 19/4/2016 15:02

This is 10% below NAV whereas GPM (solely precious metal shares though )is about 20% below.

[davebowler] 19/4/2016 14:55

NAV 266.30p Including current year income (undiluted) XD

[racg] 15/4/2016 09:47

Bi-annual at the moment.

[garycook] 15/4/2016 02:12

Aleman,and racg.If you work on 15p for the year BRWM it works out at 6.46% at 232,roughly the same as BRCI,which will be yielding 6.25% with a 4p Divi at a 64p SP,from first quarter 2017.Also will BRWM start paying quarterly Dividends the same as BRCI ?

[racg] 14/4/2016 14:05

My wild unconsidered guess is 15p p.a. go forward but probably best to be conservative like Aleman and allow for 12p if you are relying on the income.

[aleman] 14/4/2016 12:37

From the recent results:

Over recent months a number of underlying mining companies have announced
reduced or cancelled dividends. Key holdings in the Company, BHP Billiton and
Rio Tinto, have cut dividends by 75% and 50% respectively, which has
significantly reduced the Company's income for 2016. However, shareholders will
recall that due to a deliberate strategy to diversify its sources of income,
approximately 50% of the Company's revenue has historically been derived from
dividend payments with the majority of the balance sourced from bonds and
option writing. At the time of writing these other areas look likely to be less
volatile than the significant falls seen in company dividends. Furthermore, we
expect to receive royalty payments in 2016 as Avanco brings its new mine into
production during the first half of the year. Whilst these income sources
provide important diversification at a time of continued uncertainty in the
sector, shareholders should nevertheless expect a lower dividend in 2016 than
the previous year. It remains the Company's intention to fully distribute all
of the income available and the Board will be closely monitoring income to
determine appropriate payments for the future.

[aleman] 14/4/2016 12:32

I think we all agreed the dividend would be reduced but fixed interest holdings and options income, which cover about 50% of revenue from memory, mean probably not by as much as you might think if you just assumed all the income came from dividends. I think guesses have been that the dividend would be cut to 12p or a little higher - but I think it's fair to say they were just gut-feeling guesses rather than the reslt of deep study.

[garycook] 14/4/2016 12:20

What is the Dividend situation with BRWM.Is it going to be reduced like BRCI.I think Aleman is the man for this ?

[aleman] 14/4/2016 12:16

I've read that the US government tries to push a number of things off balance sheet when it suits and might be fiddling better numbers for the election. There are a few websites that try to get behind the headlines. One of them showed a rise in the deficit this year on government forecasts. I never found out why although suspected election spending. I think I read about the increased deficit on this one but can't find it now. It does, however, forecast a much increased debt level in a year when growth forecasts have been getting wound down to levels which usually means a miss on deficit and debt forecasts. GDP will have to pick up strongly if the deficit is to be hit and debt/GDP is not to rise. Note that the matter is complicated by Fed held debt which is not included ((I did not know this and have not seen it anywhere else) and would makae the numbers chosen by analysts more variable.



At the end of FY 2015 the federal debt was $18.1 trillion. At the end of FY 2016 federal debt is budgeted to be $19.4 trillion.


Edit - found it, I think.



In FY 2015 the federal deficit was 2.5 percent of GDP.
This year, FY 2016, the federal government in its latest budget has estimated that the deficit will be 3.3 percent of GDP.

Now this is before recent slower growth forecasts for the US and the miss on payroll taxes in January. Corporate profits have been falling sharply in Q1 and guidance has been week for Q2 so corporation tax for 2016 will miss forecasts as well. Of course, if debt held but the Fed does not count, they can just have a bit more QE to make the numbers look good. I previously thought the 120% debt/GDP figure (including state and local like Europe - 103%+11%+6%) included the approx 1/3rd held by the Fed. It's all rather confusing as there are different sources choosing different bits to get the results they want..

I admit your news sounds better but I'd need to look behind the headline to see what Easter and a 29 day February did. In practice, it's probably just easier to wait another rmonth or two - deficits are notoriously lumpy, anyway. The 12 month flat figure is probably reasonably representative but would normally be falling at the end of a bull market where US growth was satisfactory. The fact it has stopped falling as an upwing is due to end should raise caution..

[llef] 14/4/2016 11:33

re "The government will probably have to take action to stop the deificit expanding even faster - it was already forecasted to expand this year beifre these weaker numbers"

don't know where you get your forecasts from, but the wall street journal said.

WASHINGTON—The U.S. budget deficit was little changed in February, leaving the gap between government spending and revenue near a seven-and-a-half year low.

The government ran a $193 billion deficit in February, a month in which expenditures typically exceed revenue as tax refunds are mailed. That was up only slightly from a $192 billion deficit last February, the Treasury Department said Thursday in its monthly report.

Over the 12-month period ended in February, the U.S. deficit held fairly steady at $405 billion, or around 2.2% of gross domestic product. A year earlier, the 12-month deficit was $495 billion, or 2.8% of GDP.

[aleman] 13/4/2016 15:45

And just in:

US business stocks starting to follow business sales downwards, as happens in recessions. (Chart tells the story pretty quickly on this one.)



US consumers seem to be maxed out on debt after a splurge on 7-year car loans and student loans they are now increasingly defaulting on. Their spending is easing. The government has also been spending quite a bit more than it has been getting in and that also looks unsustainable, particulary as payroll taxes have levelled off, with more part-time and fewer full-time jobs, and corporate profits are falling. The government will probably have to take action to stop the deificit expanding even faster - it was already forecasted to expand this year beifre these weaker numbers. That's tricky economics ahead of a US election but the main media seem to be sweeping it under the carpet, which is handy.for some. Hopefully, recent Chinese strength will continue to outweigh US weakness or things are going to turn unpleasant.

[aleman] 13/4/2016 14:18

Further to what I was saying about the US:

US retail sales miss forecasts again in March to make for a poor Q1. Seasonally adjusted, Q1 is showing a quarterly fall of 0.1%. Add in the beginnings of likely stock reductions from a heavily overstocked position in recent months after overestimating demand and the USA is likely to be in a mild recession, despite a growing population. (The rise in stocks flattered US GDP last year but it will have to unwind at some point.)

[aleman] 13/4/2016 11:35

A 16.4m annualised run rate is down over 10% from last autumn. Despite higher manufacturer incentives and low interest rates deals on the record numbers of 7-year auto loans, sales have still fallen. Default rates on auto loans hit the highest rate since 2009 last month. Car sales have been falling which is why GM are laying off but light truck sales have held up until now. They might start to get hit if gasoline prices keep rising. It looks like Chinese car sales are probably rising faster than US car sales are falling. March sales in China were up 8.8% to 2.44m so annual sales there are headed for around 26-27m, up 2m or more on last year. European sales are doing well also, up over 5% in March. So metal needed for cars globally is still increasing despite zero growth expectations from the Atlanta Fed and poor corporate forecasts from the US for Q2 after a very weak Q1 full of profit warnings and job losses.

[racg] 13/4/2016 11:08

Yay for Us all.

[rcturner2] 13/4/2016 11:07

Fair comment, although I smiled at "only 16.4m"!!! Blimey you are hard to please.

[aleman] 13/4/2016 11:05

US car sales have been falling since the autumn. Forecasts for 2016 were for a record 18.5m+ but they have been getting revised down steadily and now look set to fall year on year. The annualised rate in March was only 16.4m. I fancy US Q4 GDP will eventually be revised down to close to zero and Q1 will be negative. GM have started laying employees off. S&P earnings are expected to fall around 8-9% in Q1 to make it the 5th consecutive quarter of earnings falls. The media are spinning all economic and corporate news up because they want banking and Wall Street funded favourite, Hillary Clinton, to get in so don't want Obama/democrats (and QE!) to get blamed for a recession - so they are just not reporting it yet! They will struggle to keep blaming China for the weak corporate numbers and job losses that have been gettign though after China's stonking commodity import numbers and car sales this year.

[rcturner2] 13/4/2016 10:11

Aleman, plenty of what you say is accurate and interesting, but I would not set too much store by GDP figures. As a statistic GDP is a blunt instrument and there are plenty of arguments that state that is completely outdated for advanced economies such as the US (and to a certain extent the UK). GDP simply does not capture much of modern business activity. Ask yourself how unemployment could be so low in the UK and US and new car sales so high (for example), if the economy was weak?

[dlku] 12/4/2016 07:22

Oil-producing countries from inside and outside of OPEC hope to strike a deal this weekend to freeze production in order to stabilize the price of crude. Since Saudi Arabia, Russia and others first agreed to a meeting in February, oil prices have been supported at somewhat higher levels.

[onjohn] 11/4/2016 09:34

swimming northwards

[onjohn] 11/4/2016 09:22

240p coming here