SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Ken Benes who wrote (43544)10/22/1999 7:10:00 AM
From: long-gone  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 117273
 
<<It is easier to cut back the scope of work, reducing expenses, and operating marginally, until business picks up. Why have all the problems of running flat out>>

That's why I'm thinking maybe some of the smallest / smartest operations may be as good as some of the largest. There are some miners operating on a smaller scale at a slight profit with minor hedges (when gold was in the $270 range) , at near what I call the boutique level. It may be this small / smart specialized operation that will yield best return on the $ invested same as some of the smaller most modern steel producers.



To: Ken Benes who wrote (43544)10/22/1999 10:29:00 AM
From: goldsheet  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 117273
 
> Your analysis does not hold water, particularly for a commodity based business that is selling its reserve base at a discount.

A commodity business has a standard product and there is lots of competition. Gold isn't being sold "at a discount" but at the current fair market price. If one producer doesn't supply the commodity, another will. This leaves the miner two primary options:

1) Reducing cost per ounce, and if increasing production reduces costs then so be it. You don't have to like it, but it is a reality.

2) Getting a higher than current market price by using hedging. Again, you don't have to like it, but it is a reality.

Econ 101 Viewpoint: The real problem in a commodity business is one is a price taker forced to accept prices set by the highly competitive marketplace, as opposed to having the ability to set prices.



To: Ken Benes who wrote (43544)10/22/1999 10:48:00 AM
From: goldsheet  Respond to of 117273
 
> Yes, Freeport is producing more, yet there cash flow has declined

*OT*

Reality check: Cash flow for first 9 months of 1999 was $387 million versus $358 million for first 9 months of 1998, an INCREASE of $29 million.

They also used some of the cash to buy back shares, so shares outstanding is 164.5 million versus 178.9 million, which means cash flow per share went up even more (percentage-wise)