Actually I see its on NST's website. (These reports just...

Actually I see its on NST's website. (These reports just marketing docs these days!). It is a better report than I expected but very typical. It ignores the historical cash flow breakeven situation and forecasts growing cash surpluses from FY15 on. Brokers reports always look like that but of course, rarely unfold anything like it. Gives a base cash NAV for Plutonic of $109m vs market price $25m and Barrick $35m. That is based partly on replicating improvements at Paulsons which was a new mine vs Plutonic which is very old. Doesn't really account for the costs that could be incurred to attempt to turn around Plutonic. Just says may have to not pay the interim dividend. Talks about extending the current mine life from 2 yrs to 4 but that will cost also I guess. The underlying idea is that Plutonic is a neglected asset but I'm just not sure there's much evidence of that. Looking at the mining stats, they reduced op costs at Plutonic from $1203 in FY12 to $916 in FY13:

http://www.barrick.com/files/quarterly-reports/2013/Barrick-Mine-Stats-2013-Q3.pdf

Even using Mac's numbers, they only get to a valuation of $1.10 so hard to see much upside. Aside from a rally in the price of gold. Of course, momentum is strong in the stock so who knows where it could go in the short term.