Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

La Mancha Resources Inc LACHF



GREY:LACHF - Post by User

Comment by RedHorizonon Jan 11, 2009 2:45pm
381 Views
Post# 15697340

RE: RE: Book Value

RE: RE: Book ValueNERGY:

I agree that looking at price to book is the least favorable to LMA.  That's what I think is so interesting, that by any measure we can come up with LMA will be severely undervalued.  Here's another comparison which is telling.

Both LMA and Western Goldfields have a cost of production of $500 per ounce.  WGW recently reported better numbers than that but are saying that long term it will be about $500/oz.  So then if we value them by resource ounces we get:

WGW:  enterprise value = 150M shares x $1.6 stock price + $86M in debt = $326M for 4.3M resource ounces = $76 per resource ounce.

LMA says they will have 2M resource ounces after all 2008 drilling is added in:  so 30 cents Canadian = 25 cents US
25 cents U.S. x 142M shares + $7.5M U.S. debt = $43M enterprise value for 2 million ounces.  That's $21.50 per resource ounce as compared with WGW which has very similar operating costs.  WGW is valued about 3.5 x as high.
<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>