CAPS Rating: No stars


Player Avatar goldminingXpert (29.55) Submitted: 3/14/2011 1:06:55 AM : Underperform Start Price: $1.04 ECUXF.DL.P Score: +10.20

1 underperform? 0 all-star underperforms? Are you all nuts? Collective delusions? This ongoing scam is a specially built vehicle to bilk gringos of their investing capital. Slap the word "silver" on a corporate shell, mine a piddling amount of metal at considerable losses, operate at negative cash flow eternally, and pay yourself fat salaries while constantly diluting shareholders.Anyone thinking this company is worthy of its $300+Million market cap doesn't really know much about mining I'm afraid.

Report this Post 6 Replies
Member Avatar silverminer (30.49) Submitted: 3/16/2011 10:48:57 AM
Recs: 7


I guess I don't know much about mining. :P

Had you chosen to use a less demonstrative a tone in your short pitch, I would have left this one alone. With all due respect, however, your track record in this sector does not warrant your overly confident and disrespectful tone.

Your active and ended CAPS picks in Metals and Mining have accrued a negative score of (610.99).

Your #1 most touted gold stock over the years turned out to be the biggest fraud in the industry (JAG).

You have active shorts on Yamana and Goldcorp, two of the highest quality and lowest-cost miners in the business.

ECU Silver Mining holds inferred resources of 391 million ounces. 391 million SEOs!! M&I Resources are already 40 million ounces. The underground asset alone more than justifies the market cap even if this were not in production at all.

I hope you will retain this short position for as long as you have your short of Allied Nevada, but I encourage Fools to form their own independent perspective on ECU Silver.

Member Avatar goldminingXpert (29.55) Submitted: 3/16/2011 12:34:50 PM
Recs: 0

Fair enough -- the last statement I made is a little strong. I assume, after you do a bit more research into ECU that you will realize it's scam-like qualities. For example, check out this article headlined: "When is 92.7 million ounces of silver not 92.7 million ounces of silver"

Allied Nevada is still a big joke. Due to the fact that their stock price is so inflated, they can make my pick stay red just by doing dilutions at nosebleed prices, but I not closing that pick at $30/share no way.

As much as I dislike Goldcorp -- I admit I was wrong on that one. Apparently they can grow revenue even faster than their shares outstanding inflation rate (quite the race the two have had). It seems I was also wrong on Yamana.

That's also terribly rude to call Jaguar "the biggest fraud in the industry." Especially when Seabridge continues to sit on its lovely glacier with a much larger market cap.

Member Avatar silverminer (30.49) Submitted: 3/16/2011 5:32:13 PM
Recs: 6

GMX, please don't patronize me. I've already done my DD on ECU SIlver, as I've owned the stock since 2006. That article you cite is completely bogus and ill-informed. The author used the momentary collapse in commodity prices to suggest that ECU's lead and zinc price assumptions were bloated, but the mining industry works with long-term average prices that were indeed appropriately reflected in those price assumptions. Now, silver's incredible surge since the San Diego technical report was filed has indeed altered the ratios to gold, lead, and zinc sufficiently to warrant a restatement of the 391m SEO inferred resource, and San Diego's inferred all-metal SEOs at more current (but still conservative long-term average) prices of $1,150 gold, $25 silver, $1 lead, and $0.90 zinc would bring that property's inferred resource down 28.5% from 214m SEOs to 153m SEOs. For this reason, investors are advised to pay much closer attention to the silver ounces and the silver+gold ounces primarily when assessing the company. The company makes to attempt to mask the distinction between all-metal SEOs and Gold and Silver SEOs, as can be seen at their website's resource page. There is no underlying attempt to "scam" or mislead investors. However you slice it, ECU is sitting on massive mineral potential at very reasonable valuation.

Hear you go again, declaring that some stock or other is a big joke without offering specific evidence. I see no justification for your opinion in your CAPS pitch either. Again, frankly, the fact that you clearly thought it was a big joke when you shorted it at $2.73 makes it hard to fathom why one should take you seriously at $30 per share. From current low-cost production at 100,000 ounces per year at Hycroft, the company is presently studying an expansion to some 600,000 ounces per year plus 27 million ounces of gold. Hycroft's M&I resource is 7 million ounces of gold, and 184m oz. silver. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on where the "big joke" part comes in? I'm not even a vocal advocate of the shares, but I protest your hit-and-run style of blasting a stock or company without supporting your case.

Yes, you were wrong on Goldcorp and Yamana.

We've already discussed Jaguar. I don't know how it's "rude" to characterize a company that way when they see fit to retire an operating gold mine, write down the carrying value, and strike the relevant page from their website without so much as a press release to inform their shareholders. The company's operational incompetence has gone beyond the point of reason, and I am reminded that here again for so long you repeated your undying praise for the company without ever stating a comprehensive case for why you selected it as your #1 favorite gold stock. You can't reasonably compare Jaguar to Seabridge. I don't own Seabridge, but all you have to do is chart the two to find which has been kinder to shareholders over the years. Take your pick: 1-year, 2-year, 5-year charts ... same story.

You are free to go on shorting gold and silver stocks for as long as you like, and aside from repeating my plea with fellow Fools that they not consider ever doing so in real life as long as this pm bull market persists, I will not take issue so long as you state a reasonable case to justify your position and you show a little humility and respect in place of comments like your above pitch.

Member Avatar goldminingXpert (29.55) Submitted: 3/16/2011 7:22:13 PM
Recs: 0

5 years ago, ECU.TO was at $2.50, today it is at 88 cents. 5 years ago, JAG.TO was at $6, today it is at $5. Now which one is the scam? Maybe both are scams. But I know which one is outperforming...

Member Avatar XMFSinchiruna (27.12) Submitted: 3/16/2011 9:59:14 PM
Recs: 4

That is incorrect. 5 years ago, ECU was at $1.15. On a 5-year chart, they both end up essentially flatlined. But only one of the companies played a disappearing trick with one of its operating mines.

Member Avatar goldminingXpert (29.55) Submitted: 3/16/2011 10:47:55 PM
Recs: 0

Ok fine, that's what I get for looking at a monthly chart. 4 years 11 1/2 months ago, ECU.TO was at $2.50. 5 years ago, ECU was at $1.40 (no idea where your $1.15 is coming from). Over the last 59 months, ECU.TO is down 67% and JAG.TO is down 12%.

You can play semantics games all you want, just like ECU does with their lead (excuse me, silver equivalent).

Featured Broker Partners