RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:GCM is significantly undervaluedDifference between NMI and GCM is that GCM has a higher grade than NMI (7g/t) at the time Kirkland Lake bought out NMI and GCM had a lower AISC. They both needed drilling to get more high grade. If you look at the Providencia drill results, they are only 65m deep, not very deep for an underground mine. In the conference call the CEO was saying Segovia mines go deeper and implying there was a lot more gold there. Another difference is that GCM has a huge Marmato that NMI doesn't have. In these respects, GCM is possibly much better fundamentally than NMI but selling for much less.
That is somewhat offset by Australia being a safer country than Colombia. But i don't think Colombia is as risky as most people believe. It is not like its neighbor Venezuela. Colombia has one of the longest standing democracies in South America, and free trade agreements with North America. The biggest risk has been getting the mining permits because of environmental concerns. That is a problem GCM doesn't have since they already have operating mines. I don't think country risk is the biggest reason keeping GCM down. CNL also in Colombia is given a large market cap in anticipation of its large profitability. It is really profitability that dominates how the shares are priced at. GCM has a low share price because of its lack of profitability in the past, and the market is slow to recognize the turnaround in profitability, especially with the cash generated hidden because GCM has been using the cash to pay down the payables to improve their balance sheet.
I'm not worried about the outcome of the vote. If institutions aren't able to buy above $1, GCM will still be buying with their free cash flow. For long term investors, that could actually be better since GCM would be able to buy at a bigger discount when the price is depressed.
High grade, low AISC gold miners are supposed to trade at a premium, not a huge discount. This should be fixed in time.