Carlton

Two of my favorite long-term sleepers are Revett Minerals and Mines Management, though Revett has not been a sleeper lately.

Technically, their reserves (ounces in the P&P category) amount to 2.6 ozt. per share. Yes, if you include all three categories (P&P, M&I, and Inf) their reserves & resources add up to 5 ozt. per share, but that's a more liberal analysis. Regarding their profitability: If their profitability per ounce triples and they hit their prod. targets, then: $290 x 3 x 1.79 = $1557 mln in earnings / 358 M shares = $4.25eps x 15 (p/e multiple) = $65.25 Yes, I suppose their profitability per ounce could more than triple, but now we're projecting (hoping for?) very rosy scenarios. SLW is a great company, but their stock is not cheap, and I personally see better value elsewhere. *This post is not investment advice!

I've traded this one a few times but the stock has always seemed expensive to me. Their margins are great, but the multiple is still high. For 2010 they earned $290 mln, or $0.81/sh. A P/E multiple of 15 would suggest a share price of $12.15; the current multiple is 53. Now, they project that production will increase from 24 M ozt. Ag to 43 M ozt. by 2015, a factor of 1.79. If this production increase is achieved and their profitability per ounce, let's say, doubles, then: $290mln x 2 x 1.79 = $1038 mln in earnings. Assuming no dilution, this results in $2.90 per share. A multiple of 15 suggests a share price of $43.50. Today SLW is $44.10. The business model is great but the shares look expensive. ---------------------------------------------------------- Also, their reserves are: 942 M ozt. P&P 494 M ozt. M&I So, 2.6/sh P&P and 4/sh including M&I. Thus, buying the shares today you are paying $16.96 per ozt. for P&P and $11.03 per ozt. including M&I. For many miners this would be expensive. But, perhaps with SLW's business model these valuations are appropriate. Source: http://www.silverwheaton.com/Theme/SilverWheaton/files/2011-04-01%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

I find myself doing the same thing. In the States we've got Trulia and Zillow, oh my. This was cute:

http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/KWN_DailyWeb/Entries/2011/3/8_James_Turk_-_Forget_$8,000,_Gold_Headed_Much_Higher.html

Thanks, Pixel8r. The log plot is also more in line with seasonality. However, I greatly respect Hamilton's work; he puts together great data.

I like the German model; in fact, I seem to be practicing it myself. I have always despised the term "property ladder." The idea of using equity in a smaller place to buy a bigger place (and hence go deeper in debt instead of extinguishing the debt on the smaller place) always seemed very wrong to me. Your right, property cliff is a great term, because if the market turns, you're in trouble.

Another day, another dolla... almost. Silver 36.40 +0.73

Thanks, that's a good exercise. If I buy it will be in, or very close to, Chicago. I think the fundamentals here are at least decent. We have a very diversified economy in the Chicagoland area, with some of the remnants of American industry, agriculture oriented businesses, and finance (shudder). The population of the city has been relatively stable over the past 10 years. The Census says we lost 200k; 2.9 M in 2000 and 2.7 M in 2010. The 200k dropoff was about the same for Cook County, 5.4 M to 5.2 M, but it's more or less stable, having been over 5 M since 1960. The surrounding counties have grown strongly over the past 10-30 years. I also wonder what effects Peak Oil will have on Chicago real estate. I'm generally of the mind that energy costs will drive people from the suburbs (the worst of all worlds, unwalkable medium-density with large homes to heat and cool) back into the city. However, there are some people here who think that families will be driven towards rural areas where they can make use of more land.

You sound like a British version of myself, an American. Like yourself, I look at lots of attractive properties; my heart wants to buy but my head says to rent. I think a lower purchase price is more important than a lower interest rate. Hence, if rates increase in the future and prices fall I'll be happy with that (especially if we're in position to pay cash or with a large down payment, 50%+). The outstanding mortgage balance is what will matter when you go to sell. It determines what you'll get at closing - or what you have to bring to closing! You can use a mortgage calculator like below to increase the rate and see what size price fall is necessary to produce the same monthly payment. http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/mortga...calculator.aspx

+3 for GOldfinger and pixel8r. Thanks, gents.

Stewart Thomson: http://news.silverseek.com/SilverSeek/1298393515.php

It sure looks like a beautiful area on GoogleEarth. It's the kind of place I could fall in love with. The combination of mountains and water is just excellent. I hope you find the right place at the right price.

Hey. I've been following this conversation and I'm inclined to agree with you. Although, it can become quite tempting to buy a place. The"experts" say that if the purchase price for properties similar to the one you rent is less than 15 times your annual rent, then buying makes sense. Where I am in the American Midwest this is easily true. In fact, I can buy a flat or even a townhouse (attached) that is considerably nicer than the shoebox rental I currently call home for 10-15 times my rent. If I went to the suburbs I could buy a single family home (with garden and all) for less than 15 times my rent. So I sometimes think I am "throwing money away" renting. Of course, given the economy and the RE market it seems like rents should be much lower - but it hasn't happened yet. And, you know, sometimes it almost hurts to look at pictures online of places I can afford to buy that have much nicer baths, kitchens, woodwork, etc. But, especially being single, I don't want to get married to my local jurisdiction/politicians/tax policies.

Because you say so? That's a claim totally without a basis. You just don't want to see it.

Bunk. You have no way of knowing that he won the award based on skin color. If you have to use Obama's color against him in order to attack him that must mean that he's actually a pretty good president.

Turk called the original move to $30 almost perfectly.

For the 20 year period between 1980 and 2000, no. However, this time period seems to be an anomaly in gold's 4000+ years of history.

Thanks for that articulation. I suppose my own thoughts on peak oil have suggested that, since the oil won't disappear overnight, we'll have time to develop alternative energy sources and we'll have time to adapt to using less energy. This would involve more mass transit, smaller homes, and living closer to work - things that are more common in cities than the countryside. Of course, the countryside will always be important for agricultural production and other things, but how many people will be employed in agriculture? Unless we're going back to a pre-Victorian lifestyle, most people will still work in industry and services. Yes, both industry and to a lesser extent services are under pressure in the Western world at the moment, but they can be saved and eventually will be saved, whether through tariffs, higher transports costs, or an equalization of costs between West and East (and South). Basically, most people will need to live leaner and living leaner will mean living in smaller abodes close to work in an urban area.

It was the opponents of "ObamaCare" that did most of the lying, talking about death panels and such. Also, there is no new coin tax in the Act. The Act contains a new reporting requirement; the tax is not new, you were obliged to (self)report and pay the tax previously.

Okay, here you lost me. I've always read and thought that, generally speaking, peak oil will increase the value of urban land because urban residents use less energy, for transport and for heating. For instance: http://www.walkablestreets.com/manhattan.htm The suburbs and xurbs will die. Some rural communities with productive activities will thrive. But most people will be compelled to turn to urban living. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental...n_New_York_City ^^Average annual residential electricity usage by city, 2000-2005. Measured in Kilowatt hours per customer

Jan 28 (Reuters) - Hedge fund SHK Asset Management liquidated a U.S. gold futures position this week valued at over $850 million, more than 10 percent of the main U.S. futures market, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/28/...E70R0TH20110128

Thanks, Learner. Those multiples of the 200dma seem to provide pretty good targets.

The current pullback seems to have similarities to the June/July 2010 correction, the June/July 2009 correction, and the Jan/Feb 2010 correction. Perhaps the Jan/Feb 2010 comparison is the most pertinent due to the time of year and the fact that that followed a rally that failed to set a new high, like our last rally. I wouldn't mind a spike down to $1250-1300; that would make me feel good about recommitting cash.

I'm not sure if that was me, but in case it was the answer to your question is: Gold will do a better job than platinum at preserving price stability. Platinum is an industrial metal, subject to transient supply/demand issues which change its value and that would change the general price level under a platinum-standard monetary system. Gold is not consumed very much, so its value is less subject to gyrations.