Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Corner Bay Silver (BAY.T) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Claude Cormier who wrote (2675)	1/4/2002 1:10:10 PM
From: russwinter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4409

<Bay vs PAAS valuation comparison> I think that's par for the course in terms of valuations between the few mid tier lower cost producers (like GLG,AGE, MDG, PAAS, looks like IMG is getting there) and the better advanced stage development deposits. That's the opportunity because the valuation spread (between the developer and the producer) is just far too wide in this market. That's why I keep hammering on the idea of getting into names that have a decent chance of going into low cost top quartile production at some point in this decade (doesn't have to be this year, Zardoz, a largely irrelevant argument given the grossly undervalued valuations). Subject to intelligent "speculative" debate and a diversified approach I'd offer: SFU, ARQ, CTQ, IP, YMC, BGI, BAY, ELD, MFL, FGX, GBG, MOY, NGT, NSU, CBD, TNK, maybe even a MNP, and early stage strong suspects like IMR, GNG. You've got people like Zardoz who believe they never will produce. Message 16858015 I submit that is far too pessimistic, and have the complete opposite viewpoint. The ones that successfully get into low cost production (and I think there will be many of the names we've used) will be marked up liberally to reflect robust mid tier status and valuations because as you say, they are increasingly rare (and not just silver, also PGMs and gold) investment vehicles. Or better yet they will be bought out. My preferred route however is the later, rather than outright development by the junior. I don't entirely disagree with this Zardoz statement: <Not if the company is required to come up with millions to finance such a deal.> The reward is more immediate and the risk less in a merger or sale with a larger entity. Consolidation in the junior sector is imperative too. That's the issue I'm struggling with some on my half sale (of a large position) BAY strategy at these new prices. I don't want to over stay at the party if they take the riskier route.