Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Jbay76 (< 20)

Great Panther Prowling Ahead

Recs

21

June 15, 2011 – Comments (12) | RELATED TICKERS: SLW , SLV , GPL

This Pandora IPO release must have had me flogged as I completely missed some killer GPL news.  Their quarterly report is out, and in short it was a record quarter with 7 million in profits....no small change.  They are reporting a 15% increase in silver output,  79% increase in revenue per silver ounce sold, and on and on.  If you were wondering whether to buy or sell GPL, wondering why it's been down for so long, read this report and you won't care anymore becuase this dog, or cat rather, will have it's day and when it does, you'll want to be on the cat's side...

12 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On June 15, 2011 at 5:16 PM, kdakota630 (29.50) wrote:

BTW... I'm not sure if anyone's noticed this, but Gammon Gold (GRS) has changed names and tickers:

http://caps.fool.com/Ticker/AUQ.aspx

The change happened yesterday morning but it hasn't even been updated on Google Finance yet.

Report this comment
#2) On June 15, 2011 at 6:48 PM, rfaramir (29.31) wrote:

Looks like my pick for GRS became a pick for AUQ, so I'm happy. My real life position in it has become AUQ, as well, so I'm very happy. But thanks for the heads up!

And, yes, that report looks really good. But why are silver pay able ounces only up 9%? What's the definition of that? 

Report this comment
#3) On June 15, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Jbay76 (< 20) wrote:

rfaramir

I actually don't know what silver payable ounces means.  Maybe Chris will see this and chime in.  I took it to be a posittive action, and seeing it up 9% was good. 

The item that got me was the 50% increse in cash costs to 10$.  Initially I was a little worried, but after reading the reasoning behind it, I was not concerned.  In fact, I am thinking that the cash cost may go down as they ramp up production at the Topia mine.

All in all, generatign 7 million in revenue while still ramping up production is a good thing....

Here's to hoping Chris chimes in and helps clear the fog...

Report this comment
#4) On June 16, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Jbay76 (< 20) wrote:

kdakota630

Given how long it took Google to recognize GPL's change from GPRLF, don't expect to see AUQ anytime soon.  Yahoo recognizes it however, as my quicken account took notice of it and it receives all its financial data from yahoo.

Report this comment
#5) On June 16, 2011 at 9:01 AM, XMFSinchiruna (27.71) wrote:

The production figure is silver equivalent (incl gold, lead, and zinc), while silver payable ounces is sales volume for silver alone from silver-only production of 410,000 ounces.

I would have liked to hear a little more detail on costs going forward. Agree that costs should dip back down as volumes and grades improve, and the company typically concentrates growth initiatives during the first half of the year, so 2nd halfs tend to be better, but I wopuld have liked them to state something to that effect. I'll give them a call next week, and maybe pursue an interview to check in at this half-way point in the growth plan.

Report this comment
#6) On June 16, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Jbay76 (< 20) wrote:

Sinch,

Thanks for chiming in and clearing the fog.  In many ways you're like an octupus with it's tentacles in eight different directions at once...very inspiring and very helpful!

Thanks

J

Report this comment
#7) On June 16, 2011 at 9:33 AM, MoneyWorksforMe (< 20) wrote:

Thanks Sinch. And just to add something to that, putting it in laymen's terms.

Say a miner's silver production increases 15% but the amount of silver payable ounces increases 9% over that same time frame. 

The difference is the amount of silver that still requires in-process concentrate i.e. removing waste material from the silver, separating it into two streams.

So their production of silver increased 15% but 6% of that production still requires an additional process before it is ready to be sold.

This is the way I've come to understand it. If this is incorrect at all, please feel free to address it.  

Report this comment
#8) On June 16, 2011 at 9:44 AM, MoneyWorksforMe (< 20) wrote:

"I would have liked to hear a little more detail on costs going forward"

I agree completely. As a shareholder, I really want to hear more on this; and in particular their expectations on which direction it is headed going forward. 

Report this comment
#9) On June 16, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Jbay76 (< 20) wrote:

MoneyWorksforMe

Thanks for the additional input and clarity.   From #7, I take it then that the other 6% may find itself being reported in the next quarterly report as it mayhave been processed and sold be then?

Report this comment
#10) On June 16, 2011 at 3:53 PM, XMFSinchiruna (27.71) wrote:

MoneyWorksforMe

Not to be an idea-buster, but #7 is a totally incorrect interpretation. You'll want to bury that one deep underground and approach it from a fresh perspective.

Silver production didn't increase 15% ... silver equivalent production did, which is all payable metal produced from the ore expressed in terms of silver. The difference between silver production and silver equivalent production is not in how it's processed, but rather in what each datum represents. 

Silver production was flat YOY at 410,600 oz., while a 57% increase in gold production to 2,310 ounces is primarily responsible for the 15% increase in total metal production (expressed as silver equivalent).

 

 

Report this comment
#11) On June 17, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Jbay76 (< 20) wrote:

Sinch, you're idea busting is always appreciated as it makes us better PM investors.  But, alas, now I am confused...

In their highlights, they state that silver ounces produced, excluding gold, zinc, and lead,  increased 15%  compared to 1st quarter 2010.  They also state that silver ounces produced (excluding other metals) rose 15% to 410640 ounces. 

If both silver equivalent produced and silver ounces produced increased by 15%, and both include silver production but only one silver ounces produced) looks specifically at silver production (then wouldn't it be that the production of Au, Zn, and Pb was flat YOY and that the only reason it increased by 15% was becuase it included the 15% increase in silver produced?  Afterall, its the only independent variable whereas the other variable (silver equivalent ounces produced) includes silver in addition to the other metals.  

Is this a situation where we need to compare last years 1st quarter to this report

Swimming in confusion, though I am not drowning thankfully enough

 

Report this comment
#12) On June 17, 2011 at 1:11 PM, MoneyWorksforMe (< 20) wrote:

TMFSinchiruna,

We aren't understanding one another... I'm just as confused as Jbay76 now...

 "Silver production didn't increase 15% ... silver equivalent production did, which is all payable metal produced from the ore expressed in terms of silver."

Then why does it state on the report "Silver ounces produced (excluding equivalent ounces of gold, zinc and led) "  up 15%

The next line then explicitly states the increase of silver equivalent (i.e. gold, led, zinc) to be up 15% as well.

The following line then states "Silver Payable Ounces" to be up 9%.

The disparity between "Silver Payable Ounces" and "Silver ounces Produced" is not correctly accounted for in your comment.   This 6% difference is not coming from the difference in actual silver produced and silver equivalent ounces + silver equivalent ounces.

 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement