Share
377 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 34
clock Created with Sketch.
20/06/17
10:11
Share
Originally posted by yanlin
↑
Mac Bank still don't like GXY for some reason.
This report is full of holes and misinformation.
E.g. comments such as this: "....Whilst progress is being made, the ramp up of new supply at Mt Marion and Mt Cattlin has been slower than anticipated. It appears that technical difficulties at the mines and potentially in integrating new concentrate feed into existing conversion capacity are abundant....."
I thought we had already ramped up to nameplate production. Does MacBank know something that GXY management does not know???
Or, how about this: ".... Earnings for GXY in FY17 and FY18 are unchanged due to the contracted nature of sales...."
When did GXY lock in 2018 pricing??? Why weren't we told.... (if this was the case)??
But my favourite bit of selective editing is the pricing used in the models for GXY and PLS. Here are the forward price assumptions for spod pricing MacBank uses in its valuations:
ASSUMPTIONS FY17e FY18e FY19e FY20e
GXY Spod US$/t 904 648 646 689
PLS Spod US$/t 868 812 757 720
Variance (4.1%) +20.2% +14.7% +4.3%
These revenue assumptions are simply CRAP. I have never seen a more one-sided and biased analysis ever.
These guys should have to justify this to ASIC in order to keep their professional accreditation!!!
Expand
Perhaps making a complaint to ASIC would go towards them investigating MacBank. After all, we know that it's full of holes, and so this one is easier to have a ruler over macbank and their analysts knuckles for such a "professional" report with their TP and recommendations.
Perhaps even their AFSL might come under scrutiny . who knows..