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

North American Gem Inc V.NAG



TSXV:NAG - Post by User

Comment by Durkastanon Aug 24, 2010 8:18am
497 Views
Post# 17377175

RE: Louise Lake

RE: Louise LakeMcugly: You did note that production costs aren't accounted for in your valuation, but you didn't factor in the time value of money.

Look, if the Louise Lake property was worth anything remotely close to being over $100 million, that would be reflected in NAG's market cap. Whether they hold it or sell it, it will be a line item on their balance sheet (either "PPE" or "Cash") and the company's NAV would reflect that fact.

The fact is that LL is probably not worth anything really substantial. That being said, I would rather that they sell the property ASAP for whatever it is worth and use the money toward getting the rest of these coal mines online.
<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>