Buy
Sell
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Geiger Counter Limited LSE:GCL London Ordinary Share GB00B15FW330 ORD NPV
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.50 2.78% 18.50 18.00 19.00 18.50 18.00 18.00 94,047 11:41:07
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Nonequity Investment Instruments 0.1 -0.2 -0.3 - 17

Geiger Counter Share Discussion Threads

Showing 2626 to 2650 of 3000 messages
Chat Pages: Latest  108  107  106  105  104  103  102  101  100  99  98  97  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
04/2/2019
12:04
I know the guys at GCL have conducted an interview with smithweekly which is due out post authorisation. I will be interested to hear the thought process on the current portfolio. I'd like to see a large exposure to the US in the short term as I see that market having the first catalyst of 232.
andyforster1
04/2/2019
11:56
kaos3 - on the number of holdings, andy is right, but a more concentrated ("conviction") portfolio carries its own risks, especially with miners. Political, for instance. And when most companies in a portfolio are loss-making, it's not easy to figure out which ones will get funding and which won't. Index funds are popular these days, and I think the uranium etfs have the problem that they aren't 100% uranium-focussed. So maybe think of GCL as a uranium mining index fund even though there isn't an actual index to track. Even so, I don't understand why GCL should trade at a premium, apart from the fact that miners should outperform the metal on a rise.
jonwig
04/2/2019
11:55
I just don't see how the funding model would work if you believe you can only raise money at NAV. Surely it's acceptable to raise money at its current discount to NAV as most investors would welcome another purchase in the short term whilst the commodity price is low.
andyforster1
04/2/2019
11:48
andy - there's no prohibition, it's just very unlikely to succeed in practice. They could do it if the share price was, say, 260p and they issued new shares at 255p or so - ie. a smaller premium. I've know a discount fundraising twice, with JCP and MVI. In both cases the shares stood at a discount of around 30% and they did an institutional placing at a smaller discount, thus shafting the rest of the shareholders. This situation only happens with asset-backed securities not with trading companies.
jonwig
04/2/2019
11:38
The largest 5 investments represents 52% of the fund so it is more focused than you make out. As for commanding a premium, the fund has consistently traded at a premium for close to 18 months. The simple reason I can give for this is where else uk based (minus foreign brokerage charges and fx fees) can you get good exposure to Uranium miners ?? For your average speculators this is the go to fund for easy, low upfront cost exposure to the sector and when uranium goes mainstream I believe it will carry a 10-20% premium.
andyforster1
04/2/2019
11:31
Hi Jon, I've been searching the YCA admission document and cannot find any reference that they cannot raise equity below NAV. Any chance you can point me in the right direction??
andyforster1
04/2/2019
11:11
41 investments is like an ex - cant decide what is good or bad and what she wants - but she can decide she wants regular income - from me lol
kaos3
04/2/2019
10:24
GCL's performance over the last year does not justify a premium over the NAV.
jimbox1
04/2/2019
10:13
@QP An increase of 8% in one month. By comparison Geiger id DOWN 8% in one month. --------------------------------------------- To be fair, the GCL NAV has increased 2.3% in that time. (18.11 - 18.53)
bmcb5
03/2/2019
19:30
Yep because a fund that holds 41 stocks should go up 8% because Cameco goes up. Wow possibly the quote of the day. If you want exposure to a select few stocks buy them don't buy a fund. Durrr
andyforster1
03/2/2019
19:07
These are all macro-events which I agree with and which are beneficial for the whole sector. As jonwig has brought to light, Cameco started this year (four weeks ago) at USS11.15 and today it is US$12.15. An increase of 8% in one month. By comparison Geiger id DOWN 8% in one month. It seems that even this highly beneficial rising tide of macro events which you correctly mention and which should lift all boats has notwithstanding left Geiger sorely beached yet again. Good Luck All.
quepassa
03/2/2019
15:43
Contracting ComingBetween 2005 and 2010 utilities signed long-term contracts for over 200 million lbs. of uranium a year. In the last three years contracting has fallen by more than 60 percent to average just 77 million lbs. a year.The result: by 2022, which is not far off, utilities will need 38 million lbs. more uranium than they have ordered. By 2026 uncovered requirements soar to 116 million lbs.As soon as it becomes clear that the spot market is running out, utilities will rush to ink new contracts.And those contracts will not come at current spot prices. There's no point in a producer agreeing to sell uranium at prices that guarantee it will run at a loss. And analysts estimate that producers need, on average, a uranium price of US$55 per lb. – more than double today's spot price.Contract prices will be significantly stronger than current spot. Adding to the bullish vibe, producers will probably even demand that contract pricing is somehow linked to the spot price, so they retain exposure to a market expected to shoot skyward.
andyforster1
03/2/2019
15:34
Another short term catalyst for a spot price move is the ipo of Uranium Trading Corporation who expects to list in the US very shortly. Like Yellow cake and U participation they will buy and store Physical Uranium. The estimated net proceeds from this Offering, after deducting the expenses of the Offering, assuming the maximum offering, will be ______________________. Uranium Trading Corp. will invest at least 85% of the gross proceeds of this Offering in Uranium Products and in its trading program. The Company has entered into a purchase agreement to purchase up to two million pounds of U3O8 at a discount of 1.5% of the spot price.
andyforster1
03/2/2019
11:03
So you expected GCL to hold their whole Cameco position whilst they went through a $2.2 billion tax case??? Was Berkeley a bad investment when the Oman sovereign wealth fund committed $120 million of funding??? It's all well and good looking back with hindsight but at those moments in time they were the right decisions.
andyforster1
03/2/2019
10:47
The performance of Geiger since the 2016 UPTURN has been woeful and unacceptable. jonwig , you say you have no axe to grind and are therefore treating this as an academic exercise. I can tell you that I do have an axe to grind. I have skin in the game. This is not an academic exercise for me. I want to make a healthy return on my investments. I started investing heavily in U308 in 2016 at what I perceived ( correctly in hindsight) to be the bottom of cycle and since then, the performance of Geiger has been dreadful compared to all the other U3o8 investments which I made and where the returns have been good/excellent/stellar. This fund has not positioned itself well since the UPTURN and has under-performed badly and has , in my opinion, made some very poor investment decisions such as selling down Cameco at the wrong time and buying Berkeley. Good Luck to you. all imo. dyor. qp
quepassa
03/2/2019
10:27
I was consistently taking 1 Jan in both posts. I said that in #978, should have repeated it in #980. Quoting low point to high point does tend to put things in a good light!
jonwig
03/2/2019
10:21
Your price feeds are all wrong. Unlike you jonwig! The CCJ price is currently US$12.11 and not $11.15 You quote the 2016 price at $12.33. Come on , fair play - the price bottomed at $7.70 on 1st. October 2016 It is around this time that Geiger started selling down Cameco which has subsequently rallied by 60/70%. Bad decision by Geiger. I started heavily buying uranium exposure in late 2016 and have seen some astonishingly positive returns. Whichever way you cut the mustard, Geiger has undeniably and woefully UNDERPERFORMED since the upturn in uranium began in 2016. Good Luck to you.
quepassa
03/2/2019
10:21
Oh and for clarity GCL holds all your mentioned companies so they must be doing something right.
andyforster1
03/2/2019
10:18
Ok my last response to your bonkers statement that 5 companies represent the average uranium company performance. URA was until very recently a pure play uranium etf and their performance is 2015 -37%2016 +2%2017 +10%2018 -23%In total, since 2015, URA the uranium etf is down 60%. Think about it. That's the average as it held all/most of the pure play uranium companies.And againCameco - shut down McArthur River and won a high court tax case. Energy fuels has risen off the back of the vanadium market not the Uranium market.I can't make it anymore simple. You cannot expect a Uranium focused managed fund to have only invested in the top 5 performing stocks in the sector. Since 2015 GCL is completely flat and the uranium sector (URA) is down 60%. That's the judgment of management performance not the 5 best performing stocks. That's enough on the subject. If you can't understand my point there's no point continuing the discussion. I wish you luck in individual stock picking but please don't say the management performance is poor. Because it just isn't.
andyforster1
03/2/2019
10:00
Come on, play fair - your table went back to 2015. I don't see any "+60%" here (CCJ, USD): 2015 - 16.37 2016 - 12.33 2017 - 10.47 2018 - 9.23 2019 - 11.15 (I've no axe to grind either way with GCL.)
jonwig
03/2/2019
09:30
Wow anybody with any understanding of the uranium sector would MOST CERTAINLY BE looking for a positive return within the last 1, 2 and 3 years. Unfortunately Geiger does not oblige. But if you're happy with zero share price performance on Geiger, that's cool and fine by me. I think it is poor and unacceptable performance by Geiger. I prefer +60% on Cameco and more on others in this sector over this time-frame since the recovery in U3o8 began. But each investor to his own. Good Luck to you
quepassa
03/2/2019
09:20
re post #975 - it would be more meaningful to overlay the GCL share price with the spot U price (USD/lb at start of year): 2015 - 36 2016 - 34 2017 - 22 2018 - 24 2019 - 29 Source; Https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/uranium So I'm not sure what point you're making unless it's that uranium investments haven't been great.
jonwig
03/2/2019
08:04
For info GCL is sitting on some Ur-Energy warrants with a $1 strike price. If you believe like me that the US will enforce a quota/tariff system in favour of the US producers these warrants will be in the money. It's those opportunities that I as a private investor cannot get access to.
andyforster1
03/2/2019
07:36
Wow anybody with any understanding of the uranium sector would not be looking for a positive return within the last 5 years. Your bellwether of the industry Cameco is down 30% from its 2015 high. Like I said, you cannot say the portfolio has underperformed just because it hasn't matched your choice of the top 5 top performing shares in the industry. That's just a ridiculous thing to say. The Sectors go to fund URA is down 46% in the same period.
andyforster1
02/2/2019
17:56
Yes an excellent structure to their portfolio. You are absolutely right. Share price performance reflects this outstanding construction of their portfolio 2015 - 20p 2016 - 20p 2017 - 20p 2018 - 20p 2019 - 20p
quepassa
Chat Pages: Latest  108  107  106  105  104  103  102  101  100  99  98  97  Older
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
LSE
GCL
Geiger Cou..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20201203 02:21:11