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 : Golden Eagle Int. (MYNG) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: steadyasyougo who wrote (30567)	2/22/2003 11:04:23 AM
From: Claude Cormier	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34075

<In my sarcastic way, I was trying to tell you how confused you appear also, applying an intermix of valuation (only because CKG has $25M) > Not at all. CKG is a traditional play. It has excellent balance sheet and properties that have some value and potential to develop reserves. CKG is taking the traditional approach to prove up reserves. Because of the fact that CKG is a profitable company with the ability to preserve capital, and acquire properties on a regular basis without diluting its shareholders, the value and potential are quantifiable. And in the end, one can say that it is only a matter of time before CKG shows the reserves that will make it a $20 stock. Because I can say that it is only a matter of time before CKG finds a 2-3M ounces economic gold deposits. <For MYNG, except for your last post, you talk mostly about valuation only, and only token mention of potential.> On the contrary I admit the potential to develop potential into value. But you and I disagree on how to establish such value. In my book, MYNG value will be based on current and coming cash flows. Much less value can be assigned to reserves because they cannot be quantified and will ever be. <Claude, if you will look at your old posts, you usually don't make a distinction between value and potential, as do most others. > Not true. <Your term, "build gradually", sure doesn't apply to SWG and CKG.> Sure they do. That is why I have said SWG is took expensive and should be sold. As for CKG, I think the price is not far form where it should be plus or minus $5M. <Of course, I have noticed. When they run up, you comment something like "a little ahead of themselves", and "after this correction we are seeing, there will then be another leg up". > True for CKG not true for SWG <All this, with no reserves and no positive cash flow.> That is where you are wrong. CKG has positive cash flows of some $500K per quarter which is used for admin and exploration. That is $2M a year. SWG has many other properties with reserves. < Aren't the prices of CKG and SWG based largely on potential, and less on value? > No for CKG. Yes for SWG. But again, I suggested selling SWG exactly for that reason. < Claude, on some of your exploration stocks, excluding CKG, all they have right now is potential.> First all have better balance sheet than MYNG. Second yes many have only potential. But they are selling for market cap of $5-$10 millions not $72-$100M. < And, their stock price is hyped up beyond reason, like SWG. > You keep coming back to SWG, but you never mention that I agree with you and suggest selling until we get the drill results that will confirm if the potential will transform into value. At least admit that. Also admit that SWG has a good chance of confirming value on short notice unlike MYNG. Admit that SWG has much stronger balance sheet then MYNG with $10 M in the bank and no debt. <If you would just go to each thread and point out that $1.50 is all the value CKG has> But that is not true. CGK properties have some value in the same manner MYNG property has value. We just disagree on how much value to assign to each assets class. CKG has also positive cash flow unlike MYNG which has negative cash flows. <and the incremental price increase of SWG from $2 to $12 is not justified, I would know you finally got my point.> I think I have already confirm that until results confirm the potential, SWG valuation is excessive and profits should be taken. < It is just a matter of opinion of how much market cap is reasonably justified for potential only.> We agree on that. And I guess I was allowed to say here that I think that MYNG had a high valuation. I will point to you that I never suggested that MYNG had no value and should be a $0.01 stock. <You want some of your stock at or near where they are, and you want MYNG down> If you read my letters, you know that I will say I think a stock has become expensive. I do not want MYNG down, I do not care for now. All I suggest was that MYNG may have come down from $0.29 to $0.18 because its value had become too rich for the current known numbers. <May I agree with your comment about paid advertising by GE being hype. But, Terry Turner's statement that there have been 32M ozs already produced in our area is not hype, it is proven fact.> Yes. I have always admit that there is a lot of gold there. But we are talking about the future. < As a pointed question, could you tell me how much the 32M ozs previous production has gone into your determination of a current, reasonable market cap for MYNG?> It has some value of course. But can't be much. This fact has been published and known for years. Still MYNG had a market cap of only $7 Millions just a year or two ago. SO that is probably the maximum that the geological context is worth to MYNG stock. <Can you live with my definition of hype? Value is based on reserves, resources, and positive cash flow. Potential is based on hype, or the art of substituting other facts and opinions to justify or accept a current stock price.> Well hype is not that in my book. But I guess we all have our definition that is why you tolerate how MYNG goes in its promotion effort and I find it inacceptable. < You view MYNG price as too high, based on what you know. I view it as extremely low, based on what I and others know.> Time will tell If I will have to admit here on this thread that I was wrong on MYNG. <Claude, I really enjoy the debate. Obviously, it boils <down to each person's definitions, and reasonable <application of those definitions. I also enjoy it. It always make me questions my judgment and think on how to behave on these threads. < On MYNG, I could care less if it is 0.25, and a more reasonable price would be 0.1> Well $40 millions versus $100M valuation... a big diffence. You should care. < When it goes to its potential value, that type of a discussion will be a thing of the past.> I hope you are right because if you are we will both make a lot of money. Let say that I am watching the numbers to see confirmation that your hopes makes sense. I don't see it right now. gerald