Mon, Dec 22, 2014, 10:07 PM EST - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

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

Goldcorp Inc. Message Board

  • SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Here's an old article below.

      The only thing I don't like about RGLD, is the insider selling. And the bulk of their revenues come from one mine.

      www.mineweb.net/sections/gold_silver/74195.htm

      NEW YORK -- Having lost one third of its stock price to a Barron's article sceptical of its valuation, Royal Gold [RGLD] has fought back, but the damage appears to be semi-permanent.

      Much has been made of Barron's reliance on an admitted short-seller for its information; a silly complaint since there is never an outcry when longs benefit from stock punts which are vastly more common in any and every context. Every informant has a vested interest, so full credit to Barron's for disclosing that of its source.

      What about Barron's paltry valuation of anything from $4.50 to $9 for Royal? An immediate problem is that none of the top analysts cover Royal. Canadian outfits Canaccord and Griffiths McBurney & Partners used to cover it, but that was way back in 2001. After all [adopt cynical attitude], royalty companies do not generate a lot of investment banking business.

      That leaves no comparable benchmarks to draw on, whilst the royalty business is vastly different to conventional mining. Its principal value is in offering a financing option that does not involve equity dilution, hedging or debt which invariably does more harm to resource investors than a royalty, especially in small companies.

      In the case of Royal, the situation is more exaggerated since it the sole royalty pure-play left in North America following the departure of Franco-Nevada and Repadre, although the latter retains some of that flavour as a non-operator, but with an exploration portfolio that detracts. If you want a royalty company, you only have one option now and its name is Royal Gold.

      As Jim Sinclair noted earlier this week, the only reliable way to value a business is to see what someone might pay to own all of it. In the case of Franco-Nevada, Newmont ended up paying 97 times annual 2001 sales. That would value Royal at $931 million at a gold price of $300 per ounce, or $1.5bn at $350 per ounce. Clearly that is unrealistic without Pierre Lassonde and Seymour Schulich in the driving seat, but it's an indication.

    • yeah, gg is the new industry standard as far as I'm concerned, NEM is a pile o crap.

      • 1 Reply to Dick_Butkiss
      • RGLD has outperformed most everyone as well. Over 3 months, GG has been the leader. But over 6 months and 1 year, RGLD has matched GG's performance. Over 2 years, RGLD has underperformed since the stock collapsed around late 2003 due to a negative Barron's article. But over 5 years, RGLD has pretty outperformed 99% of gold stocks. Unlike mining stocks, RGLD doesn't have to deal with high oil prices.

 
GG
17.37-0.91(-4.98%)Dec 22 4:04 PMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.
Gilead Sciences Inc.
NASDAQMon, Dec 22, 2014 4:00 PM EST
Ocwen Financial Corp.
NYSEMon, Dec 22, 2014 4:00 PM EST