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: Claude Cormier who wrote (30570)	2/22/2003 1:56:29 PM
From: steadyasyougo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34075

CC:"I will point to you that I never suggested that MYNG had no value and should be a $0.01 stock.". My gosh, Claude, you did that very suggestion, which started this whole discussion! CC:"There is another issue Gerald: Valuation. Stocks are valued either on cash flows when they are producers or on economic reserves when they are explorers or on a mix of these two numbers. GE is an emerging producer with unforseeable production levels for now and unknown economic reserves. So, over the long term, valuation will be based on cash flows. " Claude, you started out saying stocks are valued either on cash flows or on reserves, or a mix. GE has neither of these, and by your definition, has no current value, but will have some future value. Now, later posts, you say MYNG has some current value, and your other stocks have some current value, based on factors other than the two you first listed. This makes understanding your debate points a little difficult. If the factors are now more than the two you first started with, I think you need to give complete list of factors you use for "current value" and complete list of factors you use for "potential value". Things could start graying up, since the same items may be in both your lists? Yes, I admit, both CKG and SWG are poor choices for me to use, because they have some money in bank, or reserves, or cash flow to justify current value and a multiple or two or three times this, or more, for potential value. What I need is a stock you recommend that has been rising substantially, with no reserves, no money in the bank, no cash flow. Is there such a stock in your recommended list whose current stock price has increased significantly over a year ago? One that has a current stock price value, but really shouldn't have? Of course, you and I both know what would happen. The debate would center on these new factors, other than your first two, and man that would really get into a matter of opinion. So, I think we better leave it alone. Future "value" is what I am basing my opinion on, with dozens and dozens of hours of reviewing everything I can find on the property and the company. It certainly doesn't fit your definition of value that you first started with. I could get involved with you with a whole separate debate on "market cap" that is so widely used, that I find somewhat meaningless, or superficial, but I will save that for another day! Suffice to say that if the holders of 352M shares of Newmont tried to sell at once, they all would not get the $27.51 or so that some are getting who represent a very small part of the total number of shares (excluding a buyout, of course). Thus multiplying 352M by $27.51 provides a number, but has no veracity. Some shares have full value, some would have less, and so on. As the price dropped on massive selling, one would end up with an average price, much lower than the start. Claude, thanks for the comments. gerald