Skip to main content

Revisiting November 2017 Gold Analysis

I will be publishing a new gold analysis soon but I want to first revisit the analysis I did in November 2017.

In November 2017, and over the course of three Seeking Alpha articles I looked at gold companies.  In the first article I looked gold companies trading in the US with the following characteristics: leverage, valuation and sensitivity to gold prices.  In the second article I looked more closely at a short list of four companies that did well under the criteria of the first analysis.  The third repeated the analysis on Canadian miners.

Here is the performance of all of the companies over the past 18 months

If you click on the "All Securities" link you will see the break down of all the companies in the list.

This blog post is going to look at the three components of the first article to see how predictive each was to the overall return.

Leverage Factor

The first factor was leverage and the criteria was for highly leverage companies (read the article if you want to know why).

The most highly leveraged companies were:

  • AU
  • NGD
  • CDE
  • ABX (GOLD)
  • SSRI

Let's see how the leverage group performed relative to the group as a whole:

Slightly better returns as a group, in all three categories.

Valuation Factor

The next factor was valuation.  I took a novel approach to valuation, looking at value relative to production and reserves.

The best value companies were:

  • GFI
  • AU
  • KGC
  • AUY
  • IAG and ABX (GOLD) (tied)

Let's see how the value miners did relative to the whole group:

You can see that by all of the metrics except risk-adjusted return, the value stocks did better than the group as a whole.

Co-Relation to Gold Price

The final factor looked at the degree of stock price movement with gold price movement and I was looking for miners whose price was highly correlated with the price of gold.

Top five were:

  • ABX (GOLD)
  • BVN
  • SSRI
  • CDE
  • KGC

Let's see the results:

The factor was not predictive.


I recommended AU and ABX (GOLD).  Those two companies came in fourth and sixth overall (over the time period Jan 2, 2019 to June 12, 2020).  This is not bad, both are over the average.

However both metrics missed the top three performers - EGO, GFI and AGI.  I am disappointed about that.

Improvements can be made to the model.  First change the valuation metric to guidance for the upcoming year for the short-term and reserves valuation as a longer-term metric.  Incorporate the company's costs into the valuation metric.  Rather than look for the most leverage, look for the "right" amount of leverage.

The second article also included a risk factor.  Because I only applied it to a short list of four, I can't tell how informative it was.  I am, however, still interested in the metric.


Popular posts from this blog

11 Reasons Why INVRS is Better Than Excel Alone

If you work with your own investment models you likely use excel to build them, but excel isn’t ideal for many reasons and it costs you in other ways.   First, you need good data and it isn’t just lying around in an easy to import format.   You’re either keying it in yourself or paying money for excel downloads.   When you need data from numerous sources – price information, data from different statements and across multiple years - you must merge it from multiple sheets.   It's a n inefficient process which can lead to data corruption. After all this data is collected and merged, models built and tested, the net result is one statistic for one company.   A stand-alone number without context has limited use.   To be meaningful, you need to compare it to similar companies.       This is just a sample of the challenges.  You need software that overcomes these problems and is designed for investment model creation. Surprise!  This software exists,

NextEra - Good Dividend in the Renewable Energy Sector

NextEra had good results relative to a group of peers in a factor-based analysis. NextEra has an appealing profitability and income profile. Its price momentum looks decent, with a caveat. Its relatively small size (a small mid-cap) coupled with its industry (renewable energy) further weight the odds that this company could be a strong performer in the future. If you want in on renewable energy, we recommend NextEra. The Analysis Overview I created a portfolio of stocks in the alternative energy sector, looking specifically for companies with a market cap over $1B but less than $4B.  This is a sweet spot that offers strong potential for growth but is also substantial enough not to be too speculative. It's my believe that alternative energy is on the ascendance, where as fossil fuels will inevitably decline (NextEra isn't a pure play in this regard however, natural gas assets are part of its portfolio).  If you share this belief and you want exposure to this ma

Analyzing Results - 2013/Y-6

 There were eight companies in Group 8 (no 9) in 2013/Y-6: EW  STZ LRCX ALXN MU MCHP AME DE This is how they each fared from 2014 to 2020 - the year runs from April 1 to March 31st:   EW         92%, -58%, 5%, 48%, 41%, -1% STZ        36%, 31%, 7%, 42%, -22%, -18% LRCX     27%, 10%, 57%, 60%, -6%, 32% ALXN     12%, -18%, -15%, -7%, 24%, -34% MU         11%, -61%, 162%, 82%, -17%, 0 MCHP     5%, 3%, 56%, 27%, -4%, -21% AME        1%, -4%, 9%, 42%, 12%, -14% DE           -2%, -9%, 45%, 45%, 24%, -34% Six Year Return: EW  69% STZ  81% LRCX  355% ALXN  -42% MU  72% MCHP  60% AME  42% DE  68% What score did each of the above have in 2014/Y-5? EW - 6 STZ - 8 (no 9) LRCX - 4 ALXN - 8 (no 9) MU - 6 MCHP - 5 AME - 6 DE -5 What score did each have in 2015/Y-4? EW - 5 STZ -6 LRCX - 6 ALXN -5 MU - 6 MCHP - 2 AME - 3 DE - 1 What score did each have in 2016/Y-3? EW - 8 STZ - 7 LRCX - 7 ALXN - 6 MU - 7 MCHP - 5 AME - 1 DE - 2 What score did each have in 2017/Y-2? EW - 8 STZ - 4 LRCX - 8 ALXN - 6 MU -