RE: RE: Disappointing Gold / Rick Rulemaybe ilafalot2, but my understanding of the location is that it is remote and bringing in water and people and equipment could cost more than other areas. I guess the feasibility report should give a better understanding of those costs. Also, management fees have risen substantially with the new companies and prior to that, so I don't disagree with what he says. On the other hand people have to eat and pay mortgages so all is fair. I would be looking at the cash flow on the next quarterlies however.
I think my largest beef would be with the I.R. dept (or person). I get various research reports from different locations and it is rare to see a Mansfield report. Yet the ones I receive often are covering companies with inferior assets, poorer capitalization and smaller resources. Some are more interesting or at least different but almost all have a higher market cap relative to MDR's and relative to the resource in the ground.
To me thats just bad marketing. At the end of the day I am gambling that the true value will get recognized whether they have promoted it or not.
If you have a resource, aren't fully active at the moment, why wouldn't you be out buying an analyst lunch when it looks like the market is beginning to warm up to acquisitions in general? As I mentioned in an email last year I spoke to a u.s. analyst listed on MDRs website that said management never called him back. What is that about.
Like most businesses you need a combination of good, talented people. I don`t disagree that the Leasks are seasoned, experienced, straight up as they get, but I don`t know if their team is very strong and that is one of the reasons we are at 40cents today.