Sprott Resource Corp (SCP.TO) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Sprott Resource Corp (SCP.TO)

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TheSlowLane who wrote (5)	12/12/2009 7:05:34 PM
From: Amark$p	Read Replies (2) of 247

Yes, the fee structure is an issue. This is why SCP often trades below NAV, IMO. With SCP however there are a few upsides to offset fees. First, SCP is only investment vehicle I know of that allows you to own producing farm/farmland. Second, good way to own physical gold without premium of CEF (plus this gold is held oustide US and SCP holds other investments so that LTCG taxed at 15%). Third, good way to own private companies such as SCP investment in potash via SG Agricom. I am less enamored by their 25% target for energy investments. Believe better expertise available elsewhere than at Sprott for oil & gas investments. IMO, would be better for SCP to concentrate energy investing outside O&G (e.g. uranium and alternative) and SCP Waseca results have been mediocre at best. I started initial position in SCP at US$3.62. Will look to buy more when NAV is clearly above share price. FWIW, I think at current C$3.91 price SCP is below NAV given that SCP bought back shares this quarter at C$3.91 page 3 MD&A: "Subsequent to quarter end, The Company purchased 1.9 million shares through the NCIB at an average cost of $3.91 per share." NAV as of 9/30/09 was C$3.46, before runup in the gold price.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next