Novo Resources Corp T.NVO

PRICE PERSPECTIVE?

[ronreagan]

Is it fair to say the share price SHOULD be a function of annual gold ounces produced? I picked a few reputable companies and played with some 2019 numbers - and wanted to share with the board.

BARRICK produces about 5 Million ounces of gold per year and has a $40 Billion market cap (MC) - the multiplier is 8,000. Thus, 8,000 x the 5 Million ounces = the $40B MC.

NEWMONT produces about 6.4 Million ounce of gold per year and has a MC of $50 Billion - the multiplier is 7,813. Thus 7,813 x 6.4 Million ounces = the $50B MC. 

KINROSS produces 2.5 Million ounces of gold per year with a 9.3B MC - the multiplier is 3,720. 

ANGLO produces 3.3 Million ounces per year with a MC of $9.75B - the multiplier is 2,955.

MCEWEN MINING produces 175,000 per year with MC of $485 Million - the multiplier is 2,771.

The TREND ones sees is that the multipliers range from 2,771 to 8,000 - so just multiply your annual ounces by the multiplier to get your MC.

If we apply that logic to Novo and assume it will produce 100,000 ounces in 2021 with 260M shares outstanding (fully diluted), then Novo's share price could range from 1.07 to 3.08.

Of course, this is NOT considering the fact that Novo could have lower AISC (read the sorters work) or the fact that Novo is at the dawn of its existence with many years to come.

[ValuePro]

[ValuePro]

Yes, that is interesting, thanks.  It helps to support a base case to my way of thinking. I'd like to note, however, that you are comparing a start-up producer to staid old companies having old company bad habits - excepting McEwen.  These big boys are in a different market.  Novo should well exceed their multipliers. ...just a "for what it's worth" and IMO. VP

[likeike]

For what its worth in my opinion is worthless. You are applying metrics to established  producers that have a resource of 10 to 30 years estimates. How could you apply that to a stock that the market still has as an explorer. Not again we get into ESTABLISHED  RESOURCE which has been so repeatedly said has to be 43-101 compliant....we are  not. Our metrics cannot be quantified.&

[ronreagan]

Hey Ike, I'm MUCH like you on this - I just wanted to justify a BASE for myself and share. I too "believe" in the Witwatersrand comparison and that once we have a little more "evidence" for the market, then it will take into account that Novo's tenements could be producing at HIGH levels for the next 100 years, or two. I'm thinking once our boys get around to adding

[likeike]

A couple of years ago I gave a shot at reading and listening to geological professionals  but it was not only confusing it also had quite a sedative effect. Reminding me of being back in University listening to guys that just wanted to talk to justify their existence. When you have no substance you end up using semantics no one understands not even them. In my opinion when QH become a