…of three things:
1) Reader RK noticed a silly mistake of mine; I wrote “...it turns out to be a 10k to 12 k per month gold producer.” instead of “...it turns out to be a 10k to 12 k per quarter gold producer.”, which dilutes the whole message of the post.
2) I’m feeling really anal this morning.
3) I like the post, so RK gives me an excuse to run it again.
So here it is again, all fixed.
Silvercrest $SVLC (SVL.to) (SVLC) 1q14 production numbers
SVL is a funny fish, as that chart above shows. The way it keeps the fact that the lion’s share of its “silver” production come from gold ounces equivalent, for one thing. Because if you turned things around, ignored the silver word in its corporate title and ran its numbers on a more logical gold equivalent basis…
…it turns out to be a 10k to 12 k per quarter gold producer. That gets a $250m market cap (!!). Just goes to show, style beats substance every time.
What a weird and wonderful sector this is! You have small gold producers like SVL pretending to be silver producers because it makes them look better than they are. Meanwhile, you have small silver producers like Gold Resource Corp (GORO) shamming the world into believing they’re a gold company in order to maintain their own preferred line of bullshit. And then people wonder why the markets don’t take these companies seriously.
UPDATE: @jameskwantes contributes with this:
Re: Silvercrest, Sandstorm gets 20% of life of mine gold production at Santa Elena for $350/oz. Changes equation Au vs Ag
This is true. I was kind of keeping it all to the production rather than revenue side, but it’s a wholly valid point because in the end it’s not about production but about money made. So he’s right, of course. It’s now up to you to decide whether SVLC having a stream that takes blue sky away from a chunk of its gross revs makes it more or less attractive.