RE:RE:It baffles me.And, First Majestic may doing better than it may appear on paper. Their AISC is such that they make basically $1.50 (gross) for every dollar they spend on silver production (rough numbers based upon their AISC). Production has been down but for legitimate reasons and is rising again. Then add Los Gatos, then add an eventual reopening of Jerritt Canyon, then add that they've vertically integrated everything except the refining step in the silver production process. Then add that they've been stockpiling their silver. Then consider that they've improved and continue to improve their ESG scores (which should eventually encourage more institutional investment). Then consider that the new government in Mexico seems more "mining friendly". And I haven't even gotten to the silver price yet but I'll stop short of speculating on that. Even if silver stays flat, First Majestic is well positioned for growth in my view. I recall them saying all their financial models are based on $24 or $25 silver so there's some margin there. Lots to like and lots to look forward to in my opinion. GLTA
RickPeters wrote: The issue isn’t just about company performance..it’s about the silver price itself being heavily controlled. Despite rising inflation and increasing demand for silver in industrial and investment applications, prices remain artificially low, making it difficult for miners to thrive. If silver prices were allowed to reflect true supply and demand dynamics, companies would see higher margins even in challenging environments. The same applies to gold. The question shouldn’t just be about what it takes for a company to make money but why these metals, critical to the global economy, are consistently undervalued.