Fri, Sep 19, 2014, 2:47 PM EDT - U.S. Markets close in 1 hr 13 mins

Recent

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

Rubicon Minerals Corporation Message Board

bogfit 63 posts  |  Last Activity: 38 minutes ago Member since: May 31, 2002
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • When the trend ain't your friend, one must trade on individual company results and news. IMO neither PM miners nor POG has shown they have bottomed out. They may have, but show no evidence of that change in trend yet.

    But we aren't limited to just physical gold or PM miners either. For myself I've taken what I've learned about the mining industry in general, and taken positions in Cu miners. Why? Because all leading economic indicators I watch are either flat or SLOWLY rising, and weakness in foreign economies would indicate a further strengthening of the US$.

    A case in point. I gave the board a heads up on Nevada Copper last week and in the last 5 days it has gained 5%, while RBY lost over 8%. That's a 13% differential which only the myopic Whiz would claim was insignificant. Put another way. If you had sold RBY on Monday for $1.36, added another 8% or $.011, you could have bought RBY back today for $1.14 per share. Those who would turn up their nose at a week's gain of 13% are fools IMO. Simple explanation for the difference, both are in process of building mines, one had favorable permitting news, the other still no new news. Guess which is which.

    Bottom line - profitable trading is still possible, but one must expand their horizon.

    b.

    Sentiment: Sell

  • bogfit bogfit 1 hour 52 minutes ago Flag

    My prediction is that it will. In fact I'd stake my reputation on it. I've research the POS while everyone else was too lazy, or too stupid to understand the complex statistics that only I in the whole universe apply to the issue.

    Have you noticed the high correlation coefficient between SEWells' number of supporters and RBY's stock price? It's .9999 over the last three years. It would have been a perfect 1.0 except one day he had three supporters instead of the regular two morons.

    b.

    Sentiment: Sell

  • Reply to

    Last five years

    by bogfit Sep 16, 2014 1:16 PM
    bogfit bogfit Sep 18, 2014 1:16 PM Flag

    " However, there isn't any real need for me to take your suggestion..."

    It weren't no suggestion, it was a challenge, but it is a challenge you refuse. Why? Wouldn't it raise your credibility a whole bunch if you actually contacted a real mining expert and laid out your new ideas, AND THEN POSTED HIS/HER RESPONSE? Of course it would! It would lend credence to the whole argument you have been making for what? Three years? Four? And you declined with a weak argument that actually laying out your hypothesis isn't needed! LOL

    So instead of backing your argument up with expert opinion, you make another FUTURE PREDICTION THAT you refuse to support with any scientific rational. "Non linear estimation techniques are starting to get traction for high variance deposits. It will just take a little while for it to permeate the field ..." Yeah, that's right. According to you everyone else, all the geologists, all the mining engineers, all the bankers, and all the real experts are lazy, stupid, and for some unknown reason incapable of understanding your gibberish except your moronic chorts on this board, of course.

    b.

    Sentiment: Sell

  • Reply to

    Denver Gold Show

    by stock_canines Sep 17, 2014 3:56 PM
    bogfit bogfit Sep 18, 2014 11:39 AM Flag

    I figure it was all the pumping and the "geological potential" that inflated speculation driving up stock price which made stock more attractive.

    b.

    Sentiment: Sell

  • bogfit bogfit Sep 17, 2014 4:12 PM Flag

    Fat Boy,

    Temporary? LOL What in the world makes you think that?

    Kitco Commentary -
    US Dollar Set to go Much Higher
    Monday September 15, 2014 14:35

    Read and learn.
    b.

    Sentiment: Sell

  • Reply to

    Last five years

    by bogfit Sep 16, 2014 1:16 PM
    bogfit bogfit Sep 17, 2014 4:03 PM Flag

    I hardly think you deserve to criticize others for a lack of "a scientific approach". The truth is you were bashing 43-101 before the first bulk sample. So you started your analysis of the F2 deposit prejudiced against industry standards, and then with no surprise you "validated" your preconceived conclusion before it was tested finding a mathematical gimmick that 'appears" to support your argument. Bad science indeed!

    That said I realize you have absolutely no training or experience in any field of science, so this critical fault of yours is one you will wish to ignore and then if pressed to argue and deny.

    I'm not ignoring your repeated demands that I "do your own correlation coefficient calculations". You entirely miss the point. I could go back and relearn the statistical process (not strong in math took Ag Statics to satisfy my undergrad requirement) you alone feel is important. I don't dispute your math. I don't dispute the result. And you agree with me that the industry itself doesn't give a hang for the factor you keep clamoring about over and over again. In other words it is all a waste of time if no one else respects the process.

    Now if you were really interested in reforming the methodology of ore body analysis, the Rubicon MB is hardly the place where I would go to make that statement. How about contacting a real professor at the MacKay School of Mines (google it) and post his response.

    b.

    Sentiment: Sell

  • Reply to

    Last five years

    by bogfit Sep 16, 2014 1:16 PM
    bogfit bogfit Sep 17, 2014 3:40 PM Flag

    I'm sorry, you must have missed the "For those who wish to understand ...". Obviously I wasn't referring to you.

    b.

    Sentiment: Sell

  • Reply to

    Last five years

    by bogfit Sep 16, 2014 1:16 PM
    bogfit bogfit Sep 17, 2014 12:10 PM Flag

    " "your point about there being a big difference between producers and non producers is pretty much nonsense too."

    No, not nonsense, it's called math. I quote from my previous post - "... producers have dropped 45% and RBY 68% in the time period." I realize that you may not consider a 23% divergence to be significant or "big" to use your vocabulary, but to claim it's nonsense, is nonsense. I thought you were the statics and numbers guy? I guess it's just numbers you like.

    For those who wish to understand the performance difference between producers and non-producers in the market during up and down trends simply need to pull up the GDX/GDXJ chart for the last 5 years. When they do they will see that producers have dropped 45%, and non-producers about 62% (RBY has performed about 6% less than GDXJ) or non-producers performed about 27% poorer than producers. Now the Wizard of Numbers, who claims to be "better informed" than us "lazy" people, believes that a historical record of an actual 25% performance divergence doesn't really exist - "a big difference between producers and non producers is pretty much nonsense too." Talk about cherry picking data, wishful thinking, and gross denial the Whiz has it all.

    b.

    Sentiment: Sell

  • Reply to

    Last five years

    by bogfit Sep 16, 2014 1:16 PM
    bogfit bogfit Sep 17, 2014 11:37 AM Flag

    "Actually, the difficulty establishing reserves is a feature, not a bug, in the case of RBY's F2."

    Bug? #$%$ has bugs got to do with it? Actually, the difficulty establishing reserves at F2 is REAL and A MATTER OF RECORD. Where have you been these last three years?

    There we have it. The Great and Magnificent Wizard of Ahs (who sees all and knows all) considers himself to be better informed than you and most of the rest of the market. So who are these individuals who are poorer informed than this one egotistic hillbilly gambler, why it's most geologists, most mining engineers, most analysts, most bankers, and most retail investors! Only the Wiz knows the "real" truth.

    "So, know nothings such as yourself buy the same old line of BS in respect to high coefficient of variance deposits without knowing the first thing about the actual statistics that underlie the linear estimates."

    So if one disagrees with your statistical analysis they are "know nothings". If they try to evaluate mining projects using other metrics, they are "know nothings". If they try to estimate the market reaction to a company or its stock based upon experience and market history, they are "know nothings". And lastly if they aren't the Wizard of Ahs, they are "know nothings".

    "It creates an opportunity for people who aren't lazy and who do their homework to take advantage of a market misperception."

    So how does the Whiz gain such a huge advantage in the market? Why it's because everyone else is "lazy". That's right we're ALL lazy! And lastly this know all, see all man, who did all the hard research, a man always a step ahead of all the other lazy investors by his superior knowledge lost $25,000 on one stupid, reckless, irresponsible option bet.

    Wells, you're a legend in your own mind - nothing more.

    b.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    Last five years

    by bogfit Sep 16, 2014 1:16 PM
    bogfit bogfit Sep 16, 2014 6:45 PM Flag

    (cont)

    We would expect to see a close correlation as all these companies are in the same sector, but note that Rubicon has consistently UNDER-PERFORMED GDXJ.

    Not much you might say? But how much additional loss would be expected when the bottom on all PM stock has dropped out? It isn't your math I'm disputing but rather the data sources you use. They are mostly immaterial to the issue.

    "But, bogusfit, I don't ask that you take my word for it. Do your own correlation coefficient calculations."

    Ah, Professor your immaturity is showing! Funny thing, financing of precious metal mining has been going on for a long, long time. I know that financing and production costs are issues you can't seem to deal with, but with all that time the industry has come up with the means of evaluating mine earning potential. But of course they, like me, are all out of step and only the Great and Magnificent Wizard of Ahs knows the truth. LOL

    b.

    Sentiment: Sell

  • Reply to

    Last five years

    by bogfit Sep 16, 2014 1:16 PM
    bogfit bogfit Sep 16, 2014 6:43 PM Flag

    "One problem with patting yourself on the back so unabashedly."

    Your trick elbow?.

    "The performance of RBY over the last 5 years has pretty much mirrored the performance of the GDXJ. The correlation coefficient of RBY and GDXJ over the last five years has been .9669; i.e., very, very tightly correlated."

    Yes, but always lower, and lower than whom a thoughtful person might ask. Why, it is mostly other non-producing exploration companies, silver miners, or one trick ponies producing at a margin rate. Did you think that investors only had the choice between RBY or some other non-producer? It ain't so. The correlation coefficient of RBY and GDX is also high but producers have dropped 45% and RBY 68% in the time period. But that wasn't the comparison I was making either. You really seem to have trouble staying on subject. I was comparing "Two exploration companies, one with P&P and a FS, the other guesswork." which to my mind suggests that those juniors with P&P and a FS will out perform those companies that have difficulty in establishing reserves, such as Rubicon.

    "So, exactly how are the "difficulty of evaluation of coarse gold deposits" and poor management to be rationalized as the reason for the performance metrics you cite when the junior gold developer index has performed in such a highly correlated manner? Answer, they are ...."

    No, no, no! I can answer the question quite easily myself. I know you like to put words in other people's mouth, but your act is wearing real thin. First GDXJ holdings are not the same year to year, those juniors that prove up their holdings are often bot. out and thus no longer in your comparison. So what you are comparing Rubicon to is a list of relatively new junior/exploration cos. and a few silver miners. We would expect to see a close correlation as all these companies are in the same sector, but note that Rubicon has consistently UNDER-PERFORMED GDXJ. (cont)

    Sentiment: Sell

  • Reply to

    Last five years

    by bogfit Sep 16, 2014 1:16 PM
    bogfit bogfit Sep 16, 2014 5:49 PM Flag

    She says hello, and sends all her love with it.
    b.

    Sentiment: Sell

  • Reply to

    Last five years

    by bogfit Sep 16, 2014 1:16 PM
    bogfit bogfit Sep 16, 2014 2:21 PM Flag

    "Sounds like you don't own the stock...."
    Gosh, you figured that out all by yourself? LOL No I sold at $3.50 a while ago.

    ".. why waste your time here..."

    Well, I have an "interest" in some of you clowns, and I delight in showing what a moron you really are. I can't trade PM stocks for what should be obvious reasons, and I am procrastinating cleaning up the garage.

    "You can rest assured that the gold is there ..."

    Rest assured? Why? Because some ignorant, uncouth, jerk says so? No one has questioned that SOME gold is @ F2, that much has been proven by drill results. "The gold is there" ... I can't think of a more simplistic view. Here's some news for you champ, there's gold in sea water. The gold is there too! LOL More sophisticated investors want to know if the gold that "is there" can be brought to the surface and sold for more than it costs to dig it up. Apparently that distinction has escaped you.

    "why continue to bash this company along with those here who know the truth..."

    Ah, back to calling reality "bashing the company". Gee can you come up with some thing original? "

    "Those ... who know the truth".

    I see, it was a religious revelation for you. God told you "the truth". Well, I can't argue with God, now can I? LOL

    b.

    Sentiment: Sell

  • Two exploration companies, one with P&P and a FS, the other guesswork. Look at the 5 year chart of NCU.T and RBY. RBY is down 60%, NCU.T no loss, no gain. Why? Reserves? Management? POG vs. Cu?

    Over five years Cu is up only 13%, POG is up 24% nearly twice as much, so it isn't the fall in POG that accounts for RBY's poor performance as so many would want you to believe. What could be the explanation? How about coarse gold deposits being difficult to evaluate? I pointed out several years ago the difficulties that a mine at F2 would face getting built. I criticized the mgt. for making poor PR decisions. And for my trouble I've was attacked (continuing even today after my initial analysis has over the years proved to be accurate) even stooping to make fun of my disability. BTW - Those of us that are disabled, long ago learned to accept and succeed in spite of any limitations. The extremely poor taste displayed by SEWells' cronies tells far more about them than it does me.

    To show what I've had to put up with just look at all of Fatboy's posts going back several years. What kind of people are these? Do you really want them to influence your investment decisions. Unfortunately many, many of the retail investors that SEWell's crowd fooled into buying RBY, sold out long ago and are no longer on this board to relate their disappointment and loses. simply put they went on to better things.

    b.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    So what about the POG?

    by bogfit Sep 15, 2014 12:33 PM
    bogfit bogfit Sep 16, 2014 12:19 PM Flag

    Denver (Kitco News) - The strength of the U.S. dollar has been giving gold prices fits of late, and Silver Wheaton Corp.’s (TSX:SLW) (NYSE:SLW) Randy Smallwood, president and chief executive officer, sees this as gold and silver mining’s biggest hurdle.

    “The challenge is we measure silver and gold in U.S. dollars and right now, when you look at worldwide currencies, I don’t see anything that looks like a cure in terms of long-term strength and stability in fiscal management, with respect to the U.S. dollar,” Smallwood told Kitco News at the 25th Denver Gold Forum. “It looks better than any other currency in the world. Randy Smallwood, president and chief executive officer of Silver Wheaton Corp.

    “That’s the biggest hurdle the industry is facing right now and I see that continuing for the near-term - I see it’s a good foundation where we are right now,” he added.

    b.

    Sentiment: Sell

  • Reply to

    All In Costs

    by pioneerrubi Sep 16, 2014 10:58 AM
    bogfit bogfit Sep 16, 2014 12:16 PM Flag

    Figures don't lie, but liars figure - SEWells has proven that time and time again.

    Just repeating and representing the $870 as an "all in costs" is in itself dishonest. And why do it at all? Will it make your stock more valuable? No, I don't think so, but there are a few underwater gamblers who are so deluded as to think a pumping on a MB will trick newbies into helplng to bail them out . They look back a couple years when the Wizard of Ahs and his cheerleading crew pumped this stock to 300% its current price and obviously hope to have a second act. Don't be fooled! They use greed as their come on. Oh, the magnificent claims that flew around this board in years and dollars past.

    Meanwhile NCU is up strong today even after "selling the news", more gains expected.

    b.

    Sentiment: Sell

  • Reply to

    So what about the POG?

    by bogfit Sep 15, 2014 12:33 PM
    bogfit bogfit Sep 15, 2014 4:59 PM Flag

    I got that information from the Yahoo Finance page, but when I put "Asian stocks tumble on disappointing China data." in search news on Google, I got 3,200 hits. Starting w/ ABC News, but since I was only reporting today's HEADLINES that "news" was yesterday's result. Of course you could have figured that out yourself, but then it wouldn't have given you a cheap shot at me, then would it.

    Churchill is reported to have said that the most exhilarating experience in life is to be shot at and missed. It ain't that good on a message board, but it's sweet all the same.

    So other than thinking you had a "gottcha", do you have any thoughts on POG, macro-economics, or the economy, or does thinking hurt your head too much?

    b.

    Sentiment: Sell

  • bogfit by bogfit Sep 15, 2014 3:28 PM Flag

    Dundee Capital Markets comments on Nevada Copper Corporation
    September 15, 2014
    Nevada Copper (NCU-T) Land Bill on House of Representatives Calendar for Monday
    Nevada Copper Corp. (NCU-T
    BUY, High Risk
    Dundee Target, $5.25
    Last – C$1.98
    Subject: Land Bill Officially on House of Representatives Calendar for Monday
    Impact: Positive – If Land Bill Passes in House of Representatives, NCU will be one step closer to permitting Stage 2 at Pumpkin Hollow.

    Summary:
    - Land Bill is officially on the House of Representatives calendar for Monday, September 15, 2014.
    - Bill has bipartisan support.
    - When bills pass onto Senate after bipartisan support, failure rate is extremely low.
    - Congress will then vote on it in Senate: o Election year, therefore, we believe they won’t vote on it until congress resumes in 2015.
    - However, slim chance vote will occur in 2014.

    Bottom Line:

    Now that the Land Bill is officially on the calendar for Monday, we expect it to pass in the House of Representatives this week. Bipartisan supported bills that pass the House of Representatives have a very high success rate of passing in the Senate. Given NCU’s positive permitting path, progress with the shaft sinking, as well as potential upside from exploration of the East deposit at Pumpkin Hollow, we believe NCU is poised for a re-rating once the shaft is completed in Q1/15 and once we have more information on the Land Bill permitting. We rate NCU with a BUY and have a target of $5.25/share based on a 0.8x multiple to our NAV of $6.71/share. NCU currently trades at a discount and P/NAV of 0.32x. Based on recent M&A activity in the copper space, NCU has an implied valuation ranging from $4.03-$5.78/share when compared to the acquisition of Augusta Resources

    Sentiment: Sell

  • Reply to

    So what about the POG?

    by bogfit Sep 15, 2014 12:33 PM
    bogfit bogfit Sep 15, 2014 1:28 PM Flag

    I left it back when all the data pointed in one direction and everyone else was ignoring it and going the other. Now it's different. That doesn't mean I can see what is going to happen, but nothing I see now tells me that POG is going to recover any time soon. There are always the unexpected event that can change everything, but we can't invest on a hope that conditions are other than they actually are. Contrarians are realistic too.

    b.

    Sentiment: Sell

  • Financial news headlines -

    New York manufacturing index jumps to near five-year high.
    Think tank cuts Eurozone economic growth forecast.
    Canada takes its lumps as OECD cuts global economic forecasts.
    Asian stocks tumble on disappointing China data.
    Oil hits two-year low
    OECD cuts US growth forecast, warns on risk assets
    Bond Market Dispels Inflation Alarm as Fed Winds Down QE

    and Duh!-
    Dollar gains as markets price in a hawkish Fed.

    What can we make of this? With my usual superlative magnification (TM), we see a US economy continuing to struggle on, while other global partners are pulling back. Simple, right?
    No inflation in sight!
    Stronger dollar!
    Weaker POG!

    So why invest in a junior/explorer TODAY that neither Goldcorp or Agnico wanted, and which won't produce for at least another year? Are we expecting more drill results, or reserves? That might help PPS, otherwise I see no relief to RBY's meandering.

    b.

    Sentiment: Sell

RBY
1.28-0.01(-0.78%)2:47 PMEDT

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.