Mangelsen, no one likes where the stock trades, and while I would encourage issuance of pr’s, one has to look at who is being attracted by a such news. Given MDMN’s reputation, the lack of $100MM funding, trading on the OTC, a pr is not going to get much traction, IMO.
The sponsorship of the Chilean Conference far outweighs any pr MDMN could put out, in terms of attracting real sophisticated mining investors. Again, not saying the pr should not be on the wire, it should, but not the end of the world.
Could be wrong, usually am. but that is the way I see it.
Excuse my fatfinger! I look forward to the AURYN presentation and all information going forward that is presented by the “new team” at the upcoming shareholders’ meeting. A premature TO is not something shareholders need at this time. Let AURYN show what the mountain is worth before shareholders have a TO on the table. Longtime shareholders have waited a long time for a decent ROI, not something based on minimal drilling and even less early production results.
Mangelsen, look I am no cheerleader, the share price sucks, everyone knows it. We have been been bent over, everyone knows it. IMO, we have a bright future. Yeah, it is uncertain and filled with risk, but I keep going back to the old model, whiich IMO, we would end up in the trips.
Everyone’s choice, sell now or ride the potential. Don’t blame anyone from doing either.
We know the property is legit. The biggest risk we faced was company risk. That changed in two moves. 1) JJ buyout for 350,000,000 shares. 2) The two members added to the BOD last week.
With certainty I say it’s a new day for MDMN shareholders. FINALLY! IT’S ABOUT #$I*&@ TIME!
MASGLAS, a significant Medinah shareholder, will work in concert with Mr. Goodin to accomplish a comprehensive analysis of Medinah’s books and records to ensure the continued integrity of Medinah’s financial statements. During this process all of Medinah’s assets and liabilities will be scrutinized in detail. The goal of this effort is to improve the effectiveness with which Medinah communicates its results and financial condition to the investment community and the mining industry.
It looks like there are two mining projects going on. I suppose scrutinizing the financial statements won’t happen overnight – especially if they try to go back to 1997. Nevertheless, I think we’ll all be satisfied at the end of the day that the proper job was done and if anything inappropriate is found it will be rectified if at all possible (as it was with CDCH.)
I also think we will be surprised in some cases with how quickly things move along – especially because we’re used to very little getting done right or on time. One thing we can say is that a very low bar was set before.
Sorry, just feeling a little giddy and punchy realizing with a lot of comfort that after 18+ years of this nightmare, I’m going to get out with a real return!!!
According to the update from AMC, the hard rock specialists arrive today and mine preparation begins Monday! Let’s do this!!!
P.S. I’m not concerned about the price, today, or tomorrow. I figure as credibility is finally established with the market, financial statements that can be trusted are produced, and development and production occur, the price will take care of itself!!!
Admittedly the following is a result of some cherry picking of information but it should demonstrate to even the most unsatisfied shareholders that the Medinah glass is at least half full and it is looking more and more like a really big glass.
from http://aurynmining.com/about-us/
“Our focus will initially be on the exploitation of the recently discovered Caren-Merlin high grade gold veins, as well as the historic Fortuna de Lampa mine site.”
“We are confident that we will attain out production goal of 5,000 troy ounces of gold for 2016.”
“The expected production for 2017 is conservatively set to be over 25,000 troy ounces of gold.”
I’ll assume that by the end of 2016 Auryn expects to have refined their production process and be into full production NLT January 2017. If this is correct then I reason they expect to conservatively average approximately 6,260 troy ounces of gold per quarter in 2017. This means that Auryn expects to conservatively produce (2016 = 5,000 oz. + 1st qtr 2017 = 6,250 oz + 2nd qtr 2017 = 6,250 oz ) 17,500 troy ounces of gold by July 2017 and 30,000 troy ounces of gold between now and the end of 2017.
Note: If during this time the price of gold can average $ 1,300 then the gross production would be approximately $22,750,000 by July 2017 and $39,000,000 by the end of 2017.
I only point out July 2017 because Auryn’s “about us” page also includes:
“The terms of the financing are extremely favorable for AURYN. Any required cash is interest free until July 2017. After that interest will be LIBOR plus 4%, and debt repayment will occur with a portion of the revenue generated by the early production.”
And finally, don’t forget the following that will eventually add to the above.
“AURYN is also preparing the required mining application in order to obtain the required permitting for an open pit at the Fortuna de Lampa historical mine site.”
“Actual production from this site has not been taken into account for our preliminary 2017 production estimate.”
I’m sure there are some more pluses that can be added here but I’m really pleased with how this process has been developing since Auryn has been actively involved.
I think you can actually go one step past stating that “the price will take care of itself”. I think it’s fair to say that based on the trajectory of developments to date that “shareholder rewards are all but GUARANTEED to take care of themselves”. The only question is by which route. By “shareholder rewards”, I’d include cash dividend distributions just in case “the market” just won’t react appropriately to developments that should be market moving like the recent addition of the 2 new BOD members and the fact that Medinah wil retain a 25% equity stake in AMC and a 36.25% stake in the 4 Nuoco concession groups.
The GUARANTEE for appropriate shareholder rewards has to do with the fact that the generosity of cash dividends is tied to BOTH the merits and performance of the deposit (independent of “the market”) plus the share price (heavily dependent upon “the market”). If the share price just won’t budge then the cash dividends will be artificially generous on a per share basis in relation to mining industry norms. No matter how corrupt your market might be, ARTIFICIALLY GENEROUS cash dividends will attract buyers especially if a long stream of PROGRESSIVELY LARGER cash dividends (associated with a long mine life) is perceived to be a reality.
The “GUARANTEE” comes from the nature of cash dividends and the timing of when shareholders have liquidity. Let’s say that the market PERCEPTION is that Medinah will soon be in a position to declare and distribute cash dividends for a very, very long time due to its 25% AMC stake, its 36.25% Nuoco stake and AMC’s mining and management skills. As production naturally ramps up through time and the nonproducing sites gradually are awarded their production permits, let’s say that Medinah finds itself in a position to firstly dividend out “X” per share followed by perhaps 1.2X then 1.4X etc.
In NONMANIPULATED markets, the share price can be expected to drop immediately after the “dividend record date” (the “Ex-dividend date”) by the amount of the dividend. That’s because that money is now gone from the corporation’s treasury. In Medinah’s situation, a certain percentage of us with a big whack of cash in our hands from the dividend WANT the share price to drop on the “Ex-date”. There’s nothing we’d like better than to deploy that cash into buying more shares at ridiculously cheap levels knowing that another EVEN MORE GENEROUS dividend is right around the corner.
If the PPS does NOT drop on the “Ex-date” then that’s wonderful because the dividend was essentially FREE unlike the dividends other companies get when the PPS drops. If the PPS does drop then that too is wonderful so that we can expose PROGRESSIVELY LARGER SHAREHOLDINGS to PROGRESSIVELY LARGER CASH DIVIDENDS throughout time. Either outcome represents a well-deserved “shareholder reward”. We don’t have to choose an option now; the market will dictate the path to guaranteed shareholder rewards. Option #3 in this scenario would be a bunch of short covering before the dividend record date of the first dividend. This too would be wonderful and would represent a pathway to shareholder rewards.
I’m not as trusting as you Kevin that “the market will take care of itself” although it very well might do just that via one path or another but that GUARANTEE sure feels good to us baby boomers approaching retirement age.
Unlike many others, I am of the opinion that there is currently a very large DISCONNECT between our market cap and the value of our assets i.e. the 25% and 36.25% stakes. When I did my training on mineral deposit valuation techniques the golden rule was to “spend as much time determining the appropriate valuation methodology to use as you do crunching the numbers”. This is not an MR/MR multiplied by an industry standard amount per ounce in situ type of deal.
Another rule of thumb was that your valuation should be based on the PERCEIVED amount of profits the asset could spin out over the projected mine life. Of course you need to factor in the appropriate “discount factor” because of the time value of money. I’m guessing the mine life here including the porphyritic assets might be in the ballpark of 30 years. I feel that the developments to date have most assuredly created the PERCEPTION that Medinah is indeed going to be in a position to declare and distribute PROGRESSIVELY LARGER CASH DIVIDENDS for a long period of time. Does “the market” currently share this PERCEPTION? Obviously not but that’s why I like the concept of GUARANTEED shareholder rewards independent of “the market”. Thanks for all you continue to do!
With the new shareholder friendly BOD and former management (LP and JJ) basically out of the picture, I believe the risk of ballooning to 3B shares or something catastrophic happening at the corporate level has been removed. Now I think we have a bit more of a disconnect. It will be even greater in 2 months if/when AMC begins production. Even greater in October when people see they’re not just blowing smoke.
Sooner than later it’s going to be a rocking and exciting place around here. And this time it’s not a pie-in-the-sky deal that we had with Amarant.
Doc, in one sense, I wonder how long MDMN will exist. Although mine life may be 30+ years, in the long run I don’t believe it’s economical for MASGLAS.
Here’s what I mean. AMC is a subsidiary of Masglas. AMC earns a profit, pays taxes, distributes dividends. MDMN earns a profit (dividends from AMC) pays taxes, distributes dividends. MASGLAS a larger owner of MDMN received dividend from MDMN (already taxed twice) and AMC (already taxed once) and pays taxes.
I’ll let an accountant straighten out my misunderstanding.
You would be doing yourself a huge favor by ignoring the 20 year + stale rhetoric and instead focus on the contributors here who discuss “real life” valuation scenarios and comparisons. People can perceive any value they want but the market is looking for very specific metrics to actually reward value. There are no shortcuts, not even with MDMN.
[quote=“comerciante_de_ouro, post:869, topic:1280, full:true”]
Yes, there is a big disconnect, don’t tell me we are not at least one tenth of the value of MUX
[/quote]I get a kick out of these kind of statements. It underscores where the real DISCONNECT is - MDMN shareholders’ expectations which have been artificially inflated for years and the reality of how mining companies are valuated (by the market, the industry and the financiers).
I don’t know what empirical data you’re basing your opinion on, so if you’re going to throw out a back of a matchbook comparison to MUX, I’ll offer you some of mine because I’m intimately familiar with both companies:
MUX has 2 producing mines yielding 40,000 oz (and growing) per quarter in gold equivalents.
MUX has earnings of $19.5 million (and growing) per quarter; net income of $13 million and .04 per share.
MUX has one of the largest proven (163 drill holes, 43K meters) and undeveloped porphyries in the world with a total of $12.1 BILLION in Indicated resources and $33.4 BILLION in Inferred resources.
Not to mention a host of other exploration properties
MUX has $46 million cash on hand and pays its shareholders dividends.
And MUX is run by one of the most respected CEOs in the industry who owns 25% of the company and doesn’t take a salary.
MDMN offers the following:
25% equity ownership in a brand new company (and other smaller investments), backed by professionals with solid geological credentials and access to cash, that are in the process of proving up the promising, but relatively green ADL.
The anticipation of Auryn producing 5,000 oz from ADL this year of which it is improbable anything will flow through to MDMN shareholders.
1.35 billion shares outstanding in a non-reporting market tier rife with fraud.
A run to .19 six years ago that keeps shareholders dreams of a repeat afloat.
A .01-.02 trading range that has stagnated and failed to follow the price of gold like most companies in this sector.
A history and reputation for pump-and-dumps, failed deals, and as a result, a large contingency of disgruntled bag-holders who have a penchant for throwing out wild predictions based more on multiples of their cost basis rather than performing solid fact-based analysis.
Based on this brief comparison above, I’m going to say quite confidently that MDMN has a long way to go before they will be one tenth the perceived or actual value of MUX. MUX is almost a $1 billion market cap which is a fair valuation IMO given the POG and MUX’s regularly improving performance. MDMN should not be valued at $100 million at this point IMO. That would put them around .08. They have much much more to prove before that occurs and remains there in earnest.
Don’t get me wrong, Auryn is turning the ship here and MDMN makes for a compelling buy at this point for the patient shareholder. I will be adding to my position at this level. However, you can’t simply pull a comparative valuation out of thin air and affix it to MDMN when they haven’t proven all that much yet in an industry and market segment that historically relies on empirical data for its valuations.
I suppose scrutinizing the financial statements won’t happen overnight – especially if they try to go back to 1997. Nevertheless, I think we’ll all be satisfied at the end of the day that the proper job was done and if anything inappropriate is found it will be rectified if at all possible (as it was with CDCH.)
