Clearly a subjective subject that will be subject to personal interpretation and whim, but as for me i will be prepared to pay more for nine years time value than for one year, absolutely definitely, considerably more, and if any evaluation model fails to take that into account i shall ignore it forthwith, although as a pre-emptive measure i have pretty much ignored them from the start, due to failure of understanding of terms and weird greek maths letters they use
But - 'Time I$ Money' - this must have been embroidered on something in infancy, because it sticks
This pre-supposes that common shareprice rises over time, and rises more over more time, but isn't that what they're supposed to do? ... look back at nine years of Yamana, of Goldcorp, of Agnico Alamos Anatolia Francisco/Chesapeake Gammon Franco - the Franco of Lassonde/Schulich fame, ahem
Maybe L/S can't crank New Gold, well then like onepath/Will Rogers say, 'If it don't go up don't buy it.'
You made me a lot of money preaching Metallica recently tyc, and you know what the main vehicle was, it was mr.wt not the common ... why? - because it had more leverage ... let's say for simplicity the common was 5.00, wt 2.00, well for ten grand canuck i could buy 5k wts or 2k common ... 4k common on full margin which would be crazy, even then short 1k of the possibility with mr.wt ... so i had a little common, and mostly mr.wt, made more that way - due to leverage ... in that case, 11Dec08 made me mildly nervous, somehow 28Jun17 does not |
