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 : Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AuBug who wrote (24435)	11/6/2006 2:21:54 AM
From: marcos	Respond to of 78408

'Paterson also financed ... the Vueltas del Rio' Uh, yeah, however that did not do the shareholders a great lot of good, what with the toxic warrants and all - Message 16324313 There was a small matter of a gold bear in there as well, of course ... i dunno, maybe everybody gets to be a hero in a bull, but what i recall from that time is that there were way more promises than there was delivery

To: AuBug who wrote (24435)	11/6/2006 2:36:46 PM
From: baystock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78408

>What is your non-fraudlent non-humorous way to value a junior producer? < 10 times pre-tax operating cash flow would seem reasonable to me, provided they have produced at that rate for at least 2 quarters and the mine life is more than 10 years. Also there will need to be a clear path to minimum 50,000 oz per year in annual gold production for me to be interested. The current production level is way to small to interest me. You and Geomaque's management are obviously clueless (and that is the generous explanation) if you think a 10,000 oz per year producer warrants the same valuation per oz as an intermediate producer. My experience with Geomaque, where I did own a lot of shares at one time, was that the CEO failed to meet his own guidance and therefore shareholder value was destroyed rather than created. Yes he eventually did get into production, but the point was that he did not meet the profit guidance set by himself. So why should I believe him this time around ?