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

Inter-Citic Minerals Inc ICMTF



GREY:ICMTF - Post by User

Comment by green24on Jul 11, 2012 8:46am
456 Views
Post# 20101160

RE: RE: RE: In play: LOL

RE: RE: RE: In play: LOL

They were just examples for relative valuations.  Another might be SFF.  I think their in situ holdings were valued at less than $5/oz Au - but they  have country risks these other two don't have.

 

As for BGM and NKL, I only tossed them out as I was familiar with them, having owned both recently.  I agree about BGM - which I do not own - it is a gamble.  The 43-101 NR appears to be nice, but until they actually file the report and let everyone else see it, we just don't know.  Kind of a red flag that they didn't file it immediately in my book.  

 

If I'm not mistaken, the average in situ valuation is about $40/oz Au for junior explorers now, so ICI has just climbed back to the average valuation from quite undervalued levels.  Now, should they be at/under/above average valuation levels vs their peers?  That is for you do decide.

<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>