If you are serious about these comments (which I suspect you...

If you are serious about these comments (which I suspect you aren't, since you excluded the second half of my sentence from the quote "no matter how much money it will make" so i think you are baiting me...) then I can not help you!

Your 'premium' to RMS valuation is solely based on their company presentation, based on a production only metric, nothing to do with margin ... You would give RMS a fundamental higher upside even if they were making a loss as long as the dug more gold per ... ? NST is well deserving of it's place, last quarter it had an AISC of 723 and gold sale price 1681. RMS had an AISC of 1102 and sale price of 1630. What is the margin difference worth there per 100koz?

That is not counting capital costs, if you add in the capital spending and look at the cash flow NST made a $722 margin on every oz of gold they sold, RMS made cash equal to a margin of $167. That was a bad quarter for RMS, actually FY17 was a bad year. NST beat guidance on production and AISC, RMS missed both both significantly. Look at forecast FY18 RMS has AISC forecast $150 higher than NST, and is hedged $50 lower (only 30% production) so margin difference $200 if gold stays below AUD$1700 and $35 extra for every $100 increase in gold price. (figures are all calculated in my head rounded etc but you get the idea)

That is how you look at valuations and stock premiums, DYOR don't just read the company slides. Have you seen how SBM and EVN and NST do graphs? Never seen a presentation yet that does not find a measure that puts their company on top!

You also need to realise how EV can skew statistics when cash is comparable to market cap like for RMS. since it involves a subtraction (very common mistake used in advertising and tool for propaganda). Imagine RMS mines were doing so badly they were making a loss, and RMS share price dropped close to their cash value, this has happened in several companies we have reviewed. Enterprise value could drop close to zero, or even go negative ... then imagine how powerful their graph would look... I think enterprise value is better to use when making a dimensionless calculation (i.e. a ratio to other financial statistics with the same $ unit). It lest you compare the cash performance or the non cash assets (i.e.) the mine or working part of the company, and also account for debt.

I agreed previously that RMS is undervalued a bit in the forecast cash generation, I upgrade sentiment to a buy for now. It has had a hard time the last 6 months, and deserves a break, especially if it has a good quarter now, and cashflow is still good cents per share, almost guarantees a corresponding increase in share price. But there is nothing fundamental about them that they deserve a premium to their peers after accounting for the cash flow.

Please everyone just think about valuation considering cash flow reported and forecast, not just production ounces. The info is all there in the reports, but look at cash flow, not profits or koz. Especially watch gold miners capital costs and exploration costs since many of these end up just maintaining production rates not adding any new value and so eat away profits. RMS in FY16 was spending to increase production which was ok, investors noticed it and the cash rolled in, with a couple of quarters low capex and the money was a flood. Now it is just higher cost, not the worst offender (look at RSG capital spending).