Hi Vug,Honestly... the real number is neither.It's the AIC (All...

Hi Vug,
Honestly... the real number is neither.
It's the AIC (All in sustaining costs), though.... even this number can jump around because mining businesses are heavy on sustaining and non-sustaining costs, the numbers jump around quarter to quarter.

AISC is.... only worth using with businesses like CMM and GOR which have very low costs and little to no non-sustaining costs (due to mining 1 big open pit). WAF has many moving parts right now. Open pits 1 U/G and all the costs for Kiaka and to a less extent Toega.

The mining industry is a little bit like the wild west.... they can report what they like. I am not say WAF is in the wrong.
They are very open and clear with their numbers. The first page almost tells you everything you need to know (without throwing all the small details at you).

As you can see here, the numbers bounce around.



While... I do use the numbers the company provides, when I look across multiple stocks, I pretty much always do a quarterly, then yearly AIC calculation to really get a clear picture of what is happening (though... if you spend too much time on looking at stocks you start reading everything and just doing the calcs in your head! ).

Suffice to say, WAFs AISC was good this quarter, because... they sold extra ounces. Last quarter, it was less impressive because they sold... less ounces etc. Ebb and flow.

Hmm... this is dragging out. In summary, the investor almost has to decide what to focus on. AISC is not my preference, but it's a starting point, almost... a truth test... doe the AIC (ounces produced divided by the total costs over everything spent in the quarter, minus the non-sustaining cost) come slow to the AIC, if it does, ok.... if it's miles apart like... SBM, then it stinks

Unsure if that helped at all!