Ann: Melbourne Mining Club Presentation - Sept 2015, page-19

eshmun
sorry mate - but you came here claiming a smaller EV relative to cash flow
the company has inventory , but I would assume this still requires processing , its not gold bars, its inventory. Am I right? So you can argue the inventory does not have to incur mining costs, but it still needs processing costs , royalties and D and A . I cut through the noise and looked to their half yearly report, and what I see is cash of 9 m vs a marker cap of 180 m. The Ev is therefore not negative as you and the other posters claim. I then look to see if this huge inventory materialises in above average cash flow, I don't see that either, I look to see the EPS and I see this is 8 cs per share vs price of almost 4 dollar per stock. I then say, look at the investor presentation, that will give you more info but I realise there isn't one. So to be clear , EV is not cash, far from it, EV is cash and bullion minus debt vs market cap. I cant see how TBR has a better EV to cash flow as you suggest. To do so it would need to produce a cash flow of about 230m in two years
If add in all the costs ( note I haven't added inventory cost movement which would add another 5.6m ) I get costs of 37 vs revenue of 51 or AISC of 1087 of a realised gold price of 1500. Again, that doesn't scream out as being the lowest cost producer in Australia like you claim. See if they were that great I would see the numbers roll through in the quarterlies or the accounts, or even the cash balance. Why on earth would a company with a market cap of 180 have 175m in inventory. why would they not disclose AISC and why would they change auditors . you are correct they are odd , they kind of odd I don't like. If there one thing I have learnt over 20 years of inv, if they had the lowest AISC in Australia, it would be mentioned at every opportunity