RE: Mercator rates highlyWhile it is all well and good for Mercator to be included in this list of preeminent mining concerns, a closer look between the lines reveals so many absurdities, that one hardly knows where to begin!
First of all, does anyone really believe that ML will earn only $2.24 in 2009?
In its category of Mid-Cap Base Metal producers, I see that many of its contemporaries have shortcomings that are rather fundamental in nature (none of which afflict Mercator Minerals!) They include: Shorter life mine, zinc-oriented production, and political risk. Yet, the average mean forward PE ratio for this category sits at 6.0, while ML is accorded a miserly 3.3 ratio!
To further illustrate how misplaced that multiple is, and how woefully misunderstood Mercator Minerals is, just look a little further down the page, to a category entitled, “Recent and Forecasted Commodity Prices.” While that table includes all of the base and precious metals, it completely omits molybdenum! (The strongest metal, by far, in terms of price performance!) Does not that imply that ML, which is one of the brightest stars in the burgeoning molybdenum industry, is not adequately understood/appreciated by the majority of the analysts (and hence, also, the institutional investors that follow them?
The separately listed category of Mid-Cap Precious Metal producers has a mean 2009 PE ratio of 15.3 (contrasted to ML’s miserly 3.3 ratio on understated earning) but, I would be hard pressed to name a single one of them that has a more brilliant future than Mercator Minerals.