% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Claude Resources, Inc. Message Board

  • lookin_2_score lookin_2_score Jun 19, 2013 1:53 PM Flag

    Something to think about

    The last time Claude closed at or above 50 cents was Feb 14, 2013.
    Closing share price: .51
    Closing price of gold: $1646

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • How is it that you have two assets such as Amisk and Madsen with NI43-101's which confirm their infrared gold resources and have these reflected as no value assets in Claude's share price?
      Why is Rubicon's in ground gold reflected so highly in their share price and not Claude?
      Claude actually mines and produces gold while Rubicon for the most part only property manages.
      I just don't get it.

      • 1 Reply to lookin_2_score
      • Hey, lookin. Amisk and Madsen have zero market value by following reason.

        For many years (aka gold bull market) exploration assets received market value because people anticipated that some day these assets will be brought in production. Otherwise it would be stupid to buy assets not producing revenues/earnings. People were ready to pay in advance and then wait for future appreciation. Needless to say that it didn’t always work even in golden years.

        Now it is a different world around. Gold producers do not look to increase production. Actually, they have serious job on hands: how to decrease production. It is the only path to reduce costs in meaningful way. They must decrease production if they want to survive. Needless to say, not every miner has this opportunity.

        It means that no new gold mines should be anticipated and so all exploration assets won’t go to production and so they have zero market value. By the way, it is the same even for advanced projects. You can read AUMN release posted few days ago. Regarding Rubicon, it is deflating quickly and will probably go the same way, if gold stays at present level.

    • Claude current market cap ($43.5M) is worth less than its last closed private placement offering ($53M).

      • 2 Replies to lookin_2_score
      • I've been think about that too. But I don't think it matters either direction one looks at it.

        a) Seebee/Santoy replacement costs are probably $200mm (minimum) to replicate a similar mine elsewhere

        That being said, b) one would think this would attract offers of buyout / takeover.

        Canadian companies tend not be aggressive on this front. I don't see a foreign company finding CGR in the weeds called the Canadian mining industry. I don't see a Canadian miner doing a deal, and I don't see mgmt rolling over and soliciting a buyer unless their facing imminent bankruptcy. Rather, I suspect mgmt / board would fight a takeover to keep their cushy positions, and demand any potential acquirer to pony up (which they wouldn't want to do).

        I see a delisting to the pink sheets for CGR at some point, and continued obscurity / purgatory existence unless they can put up some decent earnings that attract some attention and noise.

        With a price of $0.23 per share, if these dopes could slash operations to get to a point where they can earn a nickel a share in today's gold price environment, that might get the heart beating again.
        But the rank ameteur feel of this mgmt gives one the impression this company is run like the local boy scout troop rather than a company that can go places...

      • What's even worse is Claude's current market cap is worth less than its debt facilities package ($50M) with Crown Capital Partners announced in April.

0.530.00(+0.79%)Jul 7 3:46 PMEDT