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 : Crystallex (KRY) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gutman who wrote (7219)	3/20/1998 10:11:00 AM
From: viper	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

You are a C.F.A. and you obviously have invested in mining stocks before. Bravo for an intelligent analysis!

To: Gutman who wrote (7219)	3/20/1998 10:13:00 AM
From: Stoopid	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10836

An honest question: If Asensio and company say KRY has no claims on LC, and that PDG does, and PDG has proven at least a certain amount of reserves (and both companies REALLY want this property) Why would PDG not be recommended by Asensio? He does do more than shorts, according to his website. It seems that the px of PDG has no value for LC in it. Forgive me if this sounds frightfully ignorant, but it would be a huge disservice to those who are true pro PDG believers to not be hawking PDG. Is it the fact that PDG has 9 times more shares??

To: Gutman who wrote (7219)	3/20/1998 10:41:00 AM
From: Valentine	Respond to of 10836

Hey Gutman Nice to see someone in here that knows how to use a calculator. I also am a CFA and CPA. Expect a 100% return being short this BS. Why do these internet people make it so easy for us?

To: Gutman who wrote (7219)	3/20/1998 11:00:00 AM
From: Mr Logic	Respond to of 10836

Gutman re present value, to be fair, if you use a discount level of 10% you should probably add a prediction for the future value of gold which in real terms will probably (as if I know!) be +/- 50% of where it is now. I couldn't get shares to short on this one on the day of the Asensio announcement. Shame.

To: Gutman who wrote (7219)	3/20/1998 12:52:00 PM
From: Fulvio Castelli	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

Mr. Gutman. Although the shorters here have stated similar views, I decided to address your post because I don't think you're here with an agenda. After totally dismissing that LC presents any value to the eventual winner, you wrote the following: So why does Placer want LC? To keep it in inventory until gold prices recover. They can afford to do this. KRY cannot. How then do you explain the fact that PDG had two engineering firms busily at work drawing up the plans for all infrastructure development on Las Cristinas as well as the mill itself? How do you explain their stated intent to their shareholders that they want to start mining ASAP on LC? How do you explain their supposed investment of $110 million on developing the site (half of which has been spent in the last six months alone if PDG is to be believed)? Have you read any of PDG's financial reports lately? And I love the way you try to lend credence to your arguments by stating that you're a CFA! LOL!! Well I have news for you -- LC is not a trophy that PDG intended sticking on a shelf. It was an integral part of their SHORT TERM plans. It takes at least a year to build a mill and associated infrastructure and PDG (as well as KRY) clearly thought (thinks) that the POG will have recovered sufficiently by then to make this site extremely profitable. If you think that the winning of LC presents NO value to the share price of KRY, then may I respectfully suggest that it is YOU sir who might be delusional? Ciao.

To: Gutman who wrote (7219)	3/20/1998 1:59:00 PM
From: the Chief	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

Hi Gutman. You said:So why does Placer want LC? To keep it in inventory until gold prices recover. They can afford to do this. KRY cannot. Actually the possible loss of LC was significant in PDG's mind. They did treat it as a significant loss! In fact, the "hedge" against the "loss" of LC was PDG's "option" agreement for Bema Gold's/Arizona Star's - Cerra Casale (CC) property. If PDG loses LC they will develope CC, if they win LC they will drop the option on CC. MOO(my opinion only, or, a noise a cow makes) the Chief

To: Gutman who wrote (7219)	3/23/1998 9:59:00 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10836

You are chartered financial analyst and you make a statement like the NPV of a an ounce of gold may be one fiftieth of its market value? It may be true that future earnings discount to low dollars today but what about the value, not insubstantial, of an assured income in future years? This would normally lend lustre and an additional factor of equity to earnings to an company. Did you every heard of residual value? The fact is Echo Bay Mines who are dead cheap and should have a handle on gold's value used to buy Gold in the ground in the early 80's at $30 US an ounce. Gold to a producer with a mill is indeed worth at least $50.00 an ounce to the equity at least. In fact in 1996 there were no Gold mines in Canada trading for LESS than 85$ US per ounce in share value. In fact Dome mines NOW is trading at $106 US per ounce per share. This ignores the PROBABLE Gold that Dome will find on its presently mined properties. It also ignores the price potential ore that may be found on these properties should gold increase in price. The $50 per ounce valuation figure that is used still gives Gold miners a low price to earnings ratio. Gold is one of the few businesses where you can calculate your earnings for years ahead with a fair degree of certainty. Try doing that in a technology stock. echarter@vianet.on.ca The Canadian Mining Newsletter