SI
SI
discoversearch

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: ogi who wrote (56042)1/27/2008 10:02:00 AM
From: loantech  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 78435
 
Thanks Ogi I have read those I like this paragraph from the August letter:
<On August 31st, Catherine Gignac of Wellington West initiated coverage on Western Goldfields with a 1-year target of C$3.50. What jumped out at me was that Ms Gignac came to much the same conclusion I did about the ultimate value in the stock: I have written on at least two occasions that my fair value estimate for Western Goldfields was in the $4-$10 range, depending on where the price of gold is going; Wellington West’s Ms Gignac pegged the NPV/share at $6 using a $500 gold price, $8 using $600 gold, and almost $10 using $700 gold. In the context of recent weakness in the gold price, I take some comfort that an NPV/share of $6 is obtained even with $500 gold.>

Bit it seems they may be a bit generous with their estimate? We are well over 800 POG but a long ways from 6, 8 and for sure 10 dollars a share.



To: ogi who wrote (56042)1/27/2008 12:26:04 PM
From: AurumRabosa  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 78435
 
In one Cleland says WGI should increase from its present 0.5NAV 1 to 1.5NAV for a producer. In the other he cites an analyst modelling the NPV with a worst case on the order of the 1 to 1.5NAV value. It seems so obvious that the price of the stock must go up yet many times it does not or it takes much longer than planned.