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: LoneClone who wrote (33119)	2/17/2007 11:59:20 AM
From: tyc:>	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78412

Nevertheless, it would be interesting to hear your reply to the substance of Koan's question. What justification is there for FNX to have a market cap 3x as large as RNG's market cap. I believe both enjoy similar sales revenue, and both have by-product sales to reduce their costs... (and RNG copper hedges will not last for ever). Another question worth asking is, couldn't RNG actually enhance profits by buying back their copper hedges ? The negative value of the hedges on their books is based on the copper price that existed at the end of the third quarter. It is less now. However, apparently RNG prefers to spend its cash on a copper mining prospect i.e CHD ! Good for them !

To: LoneClone who wrote (33119)	2/17/2007 1:39:52 PM
From: grusum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78412

hi LC, in your example, with all things being equal except the number of shares out, i'd buy the 50 cent stock rather than the $5 stock. i'd hope that more people would buy 50 cent stock. being objective as possible is the most important consideration in buy a stock, but one should imo also consider the subjective aspects of the stock. subjectively, the sun rises every morning, objectively, it doesn't.