Geiger Counter Share Discussion Threads

[steve73] 22/4/2024 15:16

Who was it wanted buy-backs?

Geiger Counter Ltd Share Buyback

[bigtbigt] 17/4/2024 19:34

My broker (IG) failed to inform me of the subs offer last year, so I missed out. My claim for compensation was rejected! So this year I have been chasing them every day for 2.5 weeks, and only today did they provide the option on their platform for GCL holders to subscribe.

[steve73] 17/4/2024 02:53

I had a few GPM subs that I didn't convert a few years ago, but despite there being a reasonable "profit" in them, I only received a small fraction of a pence for them.

If you don't want to pony up any more cash, it'll be better to sell some now to pay for the conversion... at least that way you'll end up with more shares (although a lower overall percentage holding).

[lcwanderer] 16/4/2024 12:24

Personally, I'm buying my full entitlement.

There's no guarantee of receiving cash in lieu of taking up your options. I did consider selling some of my existing shares to cover the cost of the sub shares and banking the difference, but if you believe in the case for Uranium and that GCL's horrendous discount to NAV will eventually narrow, it's a good opportunity to increase exposure at low cost.

[dickiehhh] 16/4/2024 10:13

What's everyone's views on the relative merits of taking up the subscription rights ?One the one hand it seems a no brained as the subscription price of 37p ish is way below current market price of 50+ and even more below NAV. (Of course the market price and nav could fall but unlikely within next few weeks esp given tight uranium market)However - as far as I understand (27th March 2023 circular) if the subscription rights are not taken up then the trustee will sell these rights in the market within 14 days albeit "with no guarantee that such a sale will be possible" and "net of costs"Hence if we don't take up subscription rights then we should get the cash instead but what's everyone view on this?? then we should get cash

[kenmitch] 12/4/2024 17:01

Why go for buybacks if believing that uranium shares have a lot further to go? It’s FAR better for GCL to invest in some of those instead of resorting to buybacks. Also a lot of Trusts that spent a lot on buybacks are disappointed that the discount did not narrow as they had hoped, and in some cases widened even further. So there’s a growing debate in the industry about the effectiveness of buybacks.

The GCL discount is wide partly because of the subscription share offer (a no brainer to go for it if eligible) and is very likely to narrow again as the new shares in issue get absorbed.

[arbus5000] 12/4/2024 16:29

there's no point in demanding a wind up on short term underperformance of GCL, it will improve when interest returns. its a useful vehicle to have with an exposure that is quite niche!

they should use the proceeds of the subs to fund buybacks if the discount persists.

[quepassa] 12/4/2024 15:07

Cameco is +4% and makes a further new ALL-TIME-HIGH at US$52.50 in today's session.

[quepassa] 11/4/2024 17:23

Bellwether Cameco .

Prices

1/2/24 US$51 (all time high)
13/3/24 US$40 (sector slump)

Today. Cameco back to $50 and looking set to make further new all-time-highs .

All imo. Dyor.
QP

[jaf111] 09/4/2024 10:38

Interesting article Donald. May I ask which is your favourite U ETF?

[quepassa] 09/4/2024 09:22

Let's hope that their new ultimate owner, behemoth ManuLife Investment Management (C$ 845billion Assets under Management) take an active interest in the fee structure and , especially, in promoting Geiger amongst its enormous investor base.

all imo. dyor.
qp

[greedfear] 09/4/2024 08:33

Good article, cheers!

“Results of the Annual General Meeting
Geiger Counter Limited held its Annual General Meeting on the 6 March 2024 (…) That, pursuant to article 46.1 of the Articles of Association of the Company ("the Articles"), the Directors shall extend the life of the Company from the sixteenth anniversary of the First Closing Date until the next annual general meeting of the Company, when a further extension will be sought.“

Let’s see if they’ve got what it takes to close the gap. If not, vote against a life extension next year.

[donald pond] 08/4/2024 21:11

I wrote a much longer piece where I mention GCL but I think it is an issue for the whole sector. Do read and comment https://open.substack.com/pub/pauldegruchy/p/investment-trusts-time-for-boards?r=2ir6do&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

[7kiwi] 08/4/2024 12:49

I have just written to the chairman too.

[7kiwi] 08/4/2024 11:53

I agree DP. The irony being that the NAV performance is actually pretty good. But that's of no use to shareholders if the discount to NAV remains this wide.

They should commit to narrowing the NAV or put themselves up for sale to Sprott. The portfolio would fit well in URNP or URNJ.

[riskvsreward] 06/4/2024 09:48

I concur, high fees are only justified by high performance, i.e there is something there for both the managers and the shareholders. Unfortunately, many ITs are there only for the managers and BODS, therefore the very poor share prices and leading many of them to the unavoidable winding ups, such as many ABDRN managed ITS (asli,adig and api).

[donald pond] 06/4/2024 09:34

I wrote to the chairman yesterday with my views and would urge others to do the same. My view, and this applies to many trusts, is that ETFs are now providing options that didn't previously exist and as a result if GCL is to prosper it needs fees to be cut and the discount to be much reduced. Whether that leaves a viable entity is a different question but I increasingly think wide discounts reflect a reluctance to pay high fees

[riskvsreward] 06/4/2024 08:45

Issuing warrants is a gimmick that only reduces shareholder value due to associated costs. It will for sure benefit the managers as they take a percent cut just to have more cash even idling around. Much better if the manager can outperform through good stock selection and organic growth.

[quepassa] 05/4/2024 15:50

North American uranium stocks strong today.

Several are +3% to +4%

[greedfear] 05/4/2024 13:53

The solution. Sell assets buy back shares as long as share price < NAV per share.
Problem being management fees are related to NAV. Hardly an incentive for management to decrease NAV.
They probably don’t care as long as they’re taking 3.1% annually.
That’s a lot for very little.

[swanvesta] 04/4/2024 19:06

Yes, I suppose they don't have anything more sensible to do with the cash. They should really be selling assets rather than shares, and buying shares rather than assets. If they need more firepower perhaps they should be adding leverage?

[greedfear] 04/4/2024 16:05

What use does a specialist fund has that charges a lot of management fees and isn’t able to make its shareholders a return that outperforms the market. Frankly, I’ve done far, far and far better picking my own uranium plays than this has done.
I bought thinking it had lower risk. But it hasn’t.
Am going to vote for liquidation of the fund. Can do better myself.

[greedfear] 04/4/2024 15:55

Like bpdon says the money has to be reinvested. What to do? Buy new NXE, CCJ a.o. at the full price at the market or buy them indirectly with a 30% discount by means of share buy backs?
Anyway, they must deal with the huge gap between NAV and share price. This looks very bad both for management as this investment vehicle.