Goldcorp, Inc. (USA) (GG)

dwot (99.99) Submitted: 9/10/07 2:39 PM

Recs: 2 | Rec This

What a joke. I missed the last quarter earnings from being away. Earnings went from 50c/share the year before to 0c/share this year. That's pretty damn serious if you are share holder.

And what a bunch of pumpers in their press release... Last year they quote the 50c/share earnings, which was the better then the adjusted earning. This year they don't use the real earnings in the press but state 14c adjusted earnings.

Get this, adjusted earns are $90 something million. One of the adjustments is over $100 million loss because of currency declines.

What a complete joke, on one hand someone has sold a snake oil sales job that gold is going to save you when the US dollar tanks because it will retain value.

And the Ostrich has his head in the sand so he does have to look at the increased costs due to the currency declines.

Looking at one side of the equation simply doesn't work.

Report this Post Reply

dwot (99.99) Submitted: 9/24/07 5:01 PM

Recs: 1 | Rec This

The more I learn about this stock, the more I can't believe how crazy people are to have bubbled it to the degree to which they have.

I believe it was 10 years ago last week (Sept 20th?) that they had a drill result of 9 ounces of gold per ton. That's about $6500/ton for metal values. That's what made Goldcorp.

Guess what... That fantastic grade of ore has been mined and sold. They have replace much of their reserve with garbage grades... 1g/ton is a measly $23-$24/ton.

Processing ore that you can extract thousands of dollars per ton in gold is going to make you a ton of money. The crap they've replaced their reserves/resources is just that, crap that you need to be highly cautious about.

Zero earnings last quarter people, it is screaming the declining grade...

Report this Post Reply

eslough (45.33) Submitted: 10/17/07 4:34 PM

Recs: 0 | Rec This

Perhaps GG trades at a premium multiple because it has the absolute lowest production cost of all the major gold producers ---- around $60.00 per oz. as compared to almost $400.00 per oz. for NEM (Newmont Mining).

Report this Post Reply

dwot (99.99) Submitted: 10/17/07 8:24 PM

Recs: 1 | Rec This

eslough

You are so grossly, grossly mis-informed. When they mined grades with several ounces per ton, yes they had low production costs. It was not because they were better or more efficient, but because they were getting a lot of gold per ton. The metal values per ton were enormous.

That gold reserve is mined and gone. There is a hole in the ground where all that gold once existed. They have replaced the stellar grades they mined, which gave them low production costs, with garbage grades. And their production costs have been increasing at a magnificent rate.

The other thing they do is mislead about costs by including by-product credits. Red Lake had costs of $246/oz last quarter, and that was down in that $60/oz range when they were mining the stellar grades. That's a huge increase, over 300% increase in costs due to declining grade.

Musselwhite had costs of $478/oz, Porcupine $447/oz, Luismin $377/oz, Marigold $754/oz, Whard $364/oz, San Martin $459/oz, Peak $537/oz, Amapari $537/oz. Their mines with by-product credits, where they take the other metals and divide it into the ounces of gold sold had cash cost of negative $1071 for Alumbrera, negative $1746 for La Coipa, and $140 for Marlin.

It is nuts to buy base metal sales at a P/E of 70 or whatever it is right now, and by hiding the base metals in there as by-product credits and lying about the real cost of production, ie fair allocation to the relative amounts of metals produced, investors are grossly mislead about their investment.

Report this Post Reply