Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
18.00 should be fine. The tax "story" while short term issue, should blow over.
I agree and I did buy at $18.11 thinking that was the bottom, but fooled again. I do think all this accounting BS is already factored in the price and I love their business model.
You are welcome. Have a nice weekend.
First Gold Manipulation, Now Silver? - Lead Researcher In Libor Case
video
Jul 09, 2015
http://www.kitco.com/news/video/show/Kitco-News/1018/2015-07-09/First-Gold-Manipulation-Now-Silver---Lead-Researcher-In-Libor-Case
Recently, a source mentioned that the Billionaire investor Ray Dalio purchased about 463,000 Shares of Silver Wheaton Corp.
Canada opts to use the tried and true method of killing the Golden Goose in order to maximize long term fiscal stability. Government types are always on the cutting edge of economic theory!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/07/silver-wheaton-taxation-idUSL3N0ZN28220150707
Canada opts to use the tried and true method of killing the Golden Goose in order to maximize long term fiscal stability. Government types are always on the cutting edge of economic theory!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/07/silver-wheaton-taxation-idUSL3N0ZN28220150707
I thought you would get a kick out of that.
Wow! And I just want a lousy 18.50! Lmao
correct, only a question of time imo
It always does.
imo at some pont silver and gld has to move higher. but it may take months to reach that..
I guess we have to have some more patience ;)
Ok let's rock on then.
Just bought at $18.11.
Still great stock to trade between the 19 to 20-21 dollar range.
Silver Wheaton (NYSE:SLW): Q1 EPS of $0.13 misses by $0.02.
Revenue of $130.5M (-21.1% Y/Y) misses by $31.78M.
No, none, nadda, never any Silver for Silver Wheaton at Pascua Lama only serious legal penalties as well likely criminal issues!
Please disregard the Glacier environment court release by ABX this is bogus crapolla and a complete side issue.
http://www.stockwatch.com/News/Item.aspx?bid=Z-C%3aMSX-2260027&symbol=MSX®ion=C
Ride this back up into the 21-22 range sell and wait for them to knock it right back down again to buy more!
Yes very much so in the low 19 and 18 range very good buying point! Bought a bunch on tues and wed.
This ought to be a great buy point. jmho
browndawg
Lol....Should be good
Damn you're good.
I really like SLW right here.
Hey John, I already did. Thx
Why has price dropped since announcement?
Silver Wheaton Announces Amendment to Credit Facility
TSX: SLW
NYSE: SLW
VANCOUVER, Feb. 27, 2015 /CNW/ - Silver Wheaton Corp. ("Silver Wheaton" or the "Company") (TSX:SLW) (NYSE:SLW) is pleased to announce that it has amended and restated its revolving credit facility dated February 28, 2013 (the "Revolving Facility"). The Company has increased the available credit from US$1 billion to US$2 billion and has extended the term by 2 years, with the facility now maturing on February 27, 2020. Silver Wheaton used proceeds drawn from this amended Revolving Facility together with cash on hand to repay the $1 billion of debt previously outstanding under its non-revolving term loan and terminated this loan. Upon closing, the Company had $685 million drawn under the amended Revolving Facility.
In addition, certain covenants were amended in order to replace the minimum total net worth and maximum net debt to EBITDA covenants with minimum net debt to total net worth and minimum interest coverage tests. The interest rate applicable to any drawings under the amended Revolving Facility remains unchanged.
"This amended Revolving Facility provides Silver Wheaton with enhanced flexibility to execute on its growth strategy in an efficient and cost-effective manner. We greatly appreciate the continued strong support provided by the syndicate of banks underlying this new facility," said Gary Brown, Silver Wheaton's Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.
The Bank of Nova Scotia and Bank of Montreal acted as Co-Lead Arrangers, Joint Bookrunners, and Lenders for the amended Revolving Facility. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Royal Bank of Canada and The Toronto-Dominion Bank acted as Co-Documentation Agents and Lenders. HSBC Bank Canada, Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi (UFJ) (Canada) and Export Development Canada acted as Senior Managers and Lenders, and Bank of America, N.A., Canada Branch, Mizuho Bank, Ltd., and National Bank of Canada acted as Lenders.
Took little hit again to down side today.
Get back in the $20 range buy some more up.
Good to see after the beating it took earlier in the week. Have been trading in and out of this stock since middle of last year tracks great with silver prices.
$SILVER jumps today...
This is LONG time...
Thank you for sharing. SILVER to GOLD ratio to snap back to levels seen 2 days ago?
Why Did Silver Wheaton Hold On To Its Pascua Lama Streaming Agreement?
Jan. 15, 2015 3:32 PM ET
Trading NRG - Seeking Alpha
"What is holding Silver Wheaton back from canceling its agreement with Barrick Gold’s Pascua Lama Project?
This is a major project that could provide a hefty return for Silver Wheaton’s investment.
In the current silver price environment, Silver Wheaton is likely to find it harder to find new projects to finance. As such, keeping this deal is important for Silver Wheaton.
The recent announcement regarding leading silver streaming company Silver Wheaton (NYSE:SLW) pushing up the deadline for the completion of the Pascua Lama mine to June 2020 may have raised a particular question for Silver Wheaton investors. Why is the company still holding on to this deal and not terminating it with Barrick Gold (NYSE:ABX)? I'll try to offer a few answers to this question.
Barrick Gold is still attempting to resume construction on the mine, which came to a halt in the last quarter of 2013 due to legal and environmental issues. So it's still unclear if this mine will actually open, and for now Barrick Gold only accumulates additional costs related to this mine. Last year, the mining company incurred $300 million in environmental costs.
Silver Wheaton entered this agreement back in 2009, and for the Pascua Lama mine and a few other smaller mines in South America it paid a total of $625 million. In the original contract, Silver Wheaton was to receive 25% of the silver produced in the Pascua Lama project for the life of the mine. Moreover, the company initially projected to receive 9 million ounces of silver in the first five years of the mine's operations. If Barrick Gold doesn't complete construction of the Pascua Lama mine until June 2020, then Silver Wheaton can choose to void the streaming deal and receive its original investment -- after subtracting the pay it has already received from Barrick Gold.
So, why is Silver Wheaton still hanging on to this deal, even though the mine's future development remains uncertain?
For one, it's always good practice to keep a good relationship with your partners, and Barrick Gold is still one of the leading gold producers worldwide. Silver Wheaton has contracts with Barrick Gold for several other mines, including Lagunas Norte Pierina and Veladero under this original contract.
Even though the deadline for the Pascua Lama mine was pushed forward a couple of times, Silver Wheaton is still receiving, as agreed, silver streaming from Barrick Gold's other mines. Up to the third quarter of 2014, Silver Wheaton received 12 million ounces of silver from Barrick Gold. This comes to a total operating cash flow of $275 million, roughly 44% of Silver Wheaton's initial investment.
Thus, it isn't very risky for Silver Wheaton with regard to getting back its initial investment. The main risk will remain the default of Barrick Gold, which is always a risk that a company such as Silver Wheaton has to account for with any of its streaming contracts. There's also the possible cancellation of construction or the sale of Pascua Lama sometime in the future. By then, however, Silver Wheaton is likely to have already retrieved its initial investment.
Here is another point to consider: In a world where gold producers slash their capex, this means fewer new gold and silver mines will be developed in the coming years. Barrick Gold cut its capex in 2014 from $5 billion in 2013 to $2.35 billion in 2014; Goldcorp (NYSE:GG) announced it will reduce its 2015 capex to $1.3 billion. Last year, the capex was around $2.4 billion. Therefore, the future opportunities for Silver Wheaton to invest in new projects are likely to be fewer than in previous years.
Also, Silver Wheaton didn't enter into new streaming contracts in the past year. The last big deal it struck was back in early 2013. So holding on to the Pascua Lama project will allow the silver streaming company to increase its operations in the coming years, assuming of course the project will eventually become operational.
Let's look at the valuation of this mine based on the initial investment of $625 million, and assume a price of silver of $15 for the life of the mine.
This is another assumption that the mine will deliver 9 million ounces of silver per annum for most of the life of the mine. The starting point is supposed to be June 2020, but until then Barrick will keep delivering silver from its other mines. So far, Silver Wheaton cashed in $275 million. The discount rate is set at 5%, and the price of silver starts at $4 with 1% inflation. Based on this crude calculation and assumptions, Silver Wheaton's ROI is positive with an NPV of a little over $1 billion.
If we were to shave off a few years or assume Silver Wheaton will receive less silver in the next few years until the mine opens, it will reduce the valuation of this mine. But the streaming company will still show a hefty return on its investment.
I think this is the most important factor to consider -- the chance of making a high return on an investment with relatively little risk. This doesn't negate the uncertainty of Pascua Lama's future. But for a company such as Silver Wheaton, which hasn't made any big streaming deals in a while, canceling this agreement could reduce its revenue in the coming years."
GG and SLW at $17.00
True gold mines ...
SLW chart posted by griff @ ATM:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=109850724
Hey Tibby ... here you go!
Do you feel better that Barrick is a partner in other agreements?
Barrick
Pascua-Lama Barrick Gold Corporation Chile/Argentina 25% - Life of Mine 2009-09-08
Lagunas Norte Barrick Gold Corporation Peru 100% - 4 years 6 2009-09-08
Pierina Barrick Gold Corporation Peru 100% - 4 years 6 2009-09-08
Veladero Barrick Gold Corporation Argentina 100% 7 - 4 years 6 2009-09-08
No Silver for SLW at Pascua Lama ever ever ever
Mountainstar optionor's next Chilean hearing: Dec. 31
2014-12-30 14:04 ET - News Release
Mr. Brent Johnson reports
UPDATE OF THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BARRICK GOLD CORPORATION BEFORE THE CHILE SUPREME COURT
Mountainstar Gold Inc. is providing an update of the legal proceedings in Chile centred on the claim by Jorge Lopehandia that he, and not Barrick Gold Corp., owns the key Chile mining claims which form that portion of the Pascua Lama project located in Chile (the Pascua Lama project straddles the Chile-Argentina border with the main orebody located on the Chile side of that border).
As background, on about March 4, 2001, Mr. Lopehandia had legal proceedings commenced in the 14th Civil Court in Santiago, Chile (court action No. C-1912-2001), relating to certain mining claims (the Tesoros mining claims) forming part of the Pascua Lama project and registered in the name of Hector Unda Llanos. On about June 5, 2001, Mr. Lopehandia was awarded an injunction prohibiting the transfer of the Tesoros mining claims. The injunction remains in effect.
On about June 19, 2006, the 14th Civil Court (with Judge Maria Isabel Reyes Kokisch presiding) issued a judgment in favour of Mr. Lopehandia. Barrick disclosed the existence of the legal proceedings on page 71 of Barrick's annual information form dated May 19, 2004 (and filed on SEDAR on May 19, 2004, but it appears that no other Barrick information form, either before or after that date, has admitted and disclosed the existence of the legal proceedings and the injunction). On page 71 of the annual information form dated May 19, 2004, Barrick said the following:
"In 2001, an action was filed in Chile by Rudolfo Francisco Villar against Barrick's Chilean subsidiary, Compania Minera Nevada Ltda. (CMN), claiming that it had failed to fully honour an agreement to purchase certain mining claims of Villar located near the Pascua Lama project. Villar's suit seeks to rescind the purchase agreement with CMN or, alternatively, damages of approximately $1-million (U.S.). At the outset of the litigation, Villar obtained an ex parte injunction, barring CMN from selling or encumbering the claims while the suit is pending before the Chilean courts. Barrick intends to vigorously defend the action, which it believes is without merit."
Note that in the above quote, the reference to Mr. Villar is a reference to the then agent for Mr. Lopehandia (his first name was misspelled by Barrick and is correctly spelled Rodolfo). See below in this news release for the Dec. 24, 2014, ruling of the Chile Supreme Court regarding this issue.
Over the ensuing years, various appeals and hearings have been held with divided success.
The legal proceedings eventually made their way to the Chile Supreme Court this year. On Dec. 18, 2014, the 4th Division of the Chile Supreme Court heard the appeal in the matter with the parties being Barrick's subsidiary, Minera Nevada SPA, and Mr. Lopehandia. No decision was issued.
As a result of a request made by the Chile Supreme Court on Monday, Dec. 22, 2014, the parties on Dec. 24, 2014, again attended before the 4th Division of the Chile Supreme Court for further submissions.
The Chile Supreme Court did not issue a decision in the appeal.
But the Chile Supreme Court did rule on two matters. First, the Chile Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Lopehandia, and not Mr. Villar, was the proper party to the appeal before the Chile Supreme Court. Second, the Chile Supreme Court advised the parties that on Dec. 31, 2014, it would hear the appeal of the recent decision of the Court of Appeal for the State of Copiapo, Chile, wherein the Court of Appeal ordered that Barrick's subsidiary, Minera Nevada, pay costs to Mr. Lopehandia.
The Court of Appeal decision relates to legal proceedings commenced at the instruction of Mr. Lopehandia in 2012 in the Vallenar 2nd Civil Court, in the city of Vallenar, in the state of Copiapo, wherein Mr. Lopehandia had sought an order terminating the Amarillos 1 to 3,000 mining claims currently registered in the name of Barrick's subsidiary, Minera Nevada (to be clear, although originally there may have been 3,000 of these mining claims, Mr. Lopehandia estimates that there are currently only approximately 700 of these mining claims remaining in existence, and it is these remaining mining claims that Mr. Lopehandia seeks to have terminated). Further, note that legal counsel for Mr. Lopehandia introduced into evidence before the Vallenar 2nd Civil Court records from Sernageomin (the National Geology and Mining Service) that disclosed that the Amarillos 1 to 3,000 mining claims entitled the holder of the Amarillos 1 to 3,000 mining claims to rights to only salts and nitrates, and not to rights to precious metals including gold and silver. The Vallenar 2nd Civil Court has not yet issued its decision on the application to terminate the Amarillos 1 to 3,000 mining claims.
The Amarillos 1 to 3,000 mining claims are the Pascua Lama mining claims that Barrick Gold acquired as a result of its acquisition of Lac Minerals in 1994 (see for example, page 9 of the Barrick annual information form dated March 31, 1999, and filed in SEDAR on April 6, 1999 -- but note the name of the mining claims acquired is not disclosed by Barrick).
In about early July, 2014, Barrick, through its subsidiary, Minera Nevada, sought to strike the Vallenar 2nd Civil Court legal proceedings. The Vallenar 2nd Civil Court ruled against Barrick and its subsidiary. In addition, the Vallenar 2nd Civil Court ordered that Barrick's subsidiary, Minera Nevada, pay costs.
Following the hearing to be held on Dec. 31, 2014, before the 4th Division of the Chile Supreme Court, Mountainstar will issue a further news release with a further update on the legal proceedings.
Slw is coiled and ready to pop 60 min 10 week chart.
Will Silver Wheaton Increase Its Stakes On Pascua-Lama?
Dec. 29, 2014 11:22 AM ET
By Peter Arendas - Seeking Alpha
Silver Wheaton hasn't made a new streaming agreement for more than a year.
Pascua-Lama is a large project suspended by Barrick Gold due to huge cost overruns.
Pascua-Lama is too big and Barrick Gold has invested too much money into it not to finish it.
Gaining another silver or gold stream from Pascua-Lama would mean a huge boost to Silver Wheaton's share price.
Silver Wheaton (NYSE:SLW) lags behind its main competitors, Royal Gold (NASDAQ:RGLD) and Franco-Nevada (NYSE:FNV). While Royal Gold is up 32% year to date and Franco-Nevada is up 15%, Silver Wheaton has lost 3.5% of its value. Also the comparison of P/E ratios shows that investors are more optimistic about the future prospects of Royal Gold and Franco-Nevada.
Company Estimated P/E (12/2014)
Franco-Nevada 48.56
Royal Gold 44.70
Silver Wheaton 25.29
Source: Bloomberg.
The competitors have almost two times higher P/E ratios than Silver Wheaton. The underperformance of Silver Wheaton is usually explained as a combination of two factors:
Silver Wheaton's main focus is silver and silver is more volatile (i.e., more risky) compared to gold. Gold has lost only 2.2% of its value while silver is down by almost 19% year to date. This is why investors are more confident in investing in shares of Franco-Nevada and Royal Gold that are primarily focused on gold.
Silver Wheaton hasn't expanded its royalty portfolio for more than an year. On the other hand, Franco-Nevada and Royal Gold were more active. This is why the investors expect more growth from them, which is also reflected in higher valuations of their shares.
Both of the above-mentioned points can be resolved at once. Silver Wheaton needs to buy another stream, ideally a gold stream. Although there is a lot of projects that need to be financed right now, only a couple of them is big enough to have a meaningful impact on the valuation of a company like Silver Wheaton. Pascua-Lama owned by Barrick Gold (NYSE:ABX) is big enough. And Silver Wheaton knows Pascua-Lama quite well because it already owns a streaming agreement on a 25% share of its silver production.
Pascua-Lama and Its Future
The Pascua-Lama deposit is located in South America on the Chile-Argentina border. There are proven and probable reserves of 15 million toz of gold and 675 million toz of silver. The projected mine life is 25 years. The production during the first 5 years was expected at the level of 800,000-850,000 toz of gold and 35,000,000 toz of silver, with all-in sustaining cash costs between $50 and $200 per toz of gold. It means that the project can be highly profitable even at the current gold price. The problem is that the estimated capex grew from $1.6 billion in 2006 to more than $8.5 billion in 2014. Barrick has already invested more than $5 billion, but the decline of the gold market together with some political and environmental problems forced the company to stop the construction of the mine back in 2013.
Although the construction has been suspended, there was too much money invested for Barrick Gold to not finish the mine. The mine would be highly profitable even at the current gold price. The production of 800,000 toz of gold at all-in sustaining cash costs of $200/toz and gold price of $1200 would result in an yearly profit of $800 million. For comparison, the adjusted net earnings of Barrick Gold were $222 million in Q3 2014. It means that Pascua-Lama has the potential to significantly boost financial results as well as share value of the company.
Barrick's management surely knows this, although its comments about the restart of development are only tentative. But keeping the project conserved is expensive ($300 million in 2014 only) and it is probable that the estimated capex of $8.5 billion will rise as the years pass by. And upon of it if the mine isn't completed by the end of 2017, Silver Wheaton will have the right to terminate the streaming agreement. In this case, Barrick will be obliged to return Silver Wheaton $625 million less a credit for silver already delivered.
The above-mentioned is why Barrick claims that it will explore opportunities to improve the project's risk-adjusted returns, including strategic partnerships or royalty and other income streaming agreements. According to a government official in Argentina, Barrick Gold is in talks to form a partnership on Pascua-Lama with Zijin Mining (OTCPK:ZIJMF). Zijin Mining is the biggest Chinese gold producer and it is trying to expand its operations outside of China. Only a couple of weeks ago, Zijin Mining announced that it will acquire 9.9% of shares of Pretium Resources (NYSE:PVG) via a private placement. Whether the Chinese will make a deal with Barrick Gold or not, Barrick may need another financial infusion to complete the construction of Pascua-Lama, and Silver Wheaton has more than $1 billion to play with.
Silver Wheaton and Pascua-Lama
Silver Wheaton acquired the Pascua-Lama silver stream in September 2009. Silver Wheaton made an upfront payment of $625 million. As a result the company will receive 25% of silver production from Pascua-Lama at a price of $3.9 (or the market price if the market price is below $3.9/toz). The price of silver was $16.5/toz and the price of gold was $997/toz back in September 2009, which means that the price conditions were similar to the present ones. As such, if Silver Wheaton wants to make another streaming agreement with Barrick it should be able to reach similar terms.
Silver Wheaton should get 9,000,000 toz of silver per year during the first five years of operations. The estimated silver production of Silver Wheaton is 36,000,000 toz of silver equivalent. The current agreement may result in a 25% increase of today's production numbers. Silver Wheaton has over $1 billion of capital prepared for acquisitions of new streams, which means that it has more than enough money to reach a streaming agreement with Barrick Gold similar to the current one. It would mean a significant boost for the valuation of Silver Wheaton because:
The agreement would mean that Pascua-Lama is back on track and the markets can include the 25% growth of production into the share price.
Silver Wheaton made another deal and the business will expand.The markets should include the value of the new contract into the share price.
If the new agreement was about a gold stream instead of another silver stream, it would mean a significant diversification of the Silver Wheaton's portfolio. It should increase the valuation of Silver Wheaton (in the terms of the P/E ratio) to levels more similar to Royal Gold and Franco-Nevada.
Yes, someone can tell that the exposition against Pascua-Lama could get too big, but most of the risks can be treated in the terms of the streaming agreement (as it has done in the current streaming agreement where Barrick Gold is obliged to finish the construction by a predetermined date, or else Silver Wheaton will have the right to terminate the contract). Barrick Gold is a strong partner that should be able to fulfill its obligations. And although there were some environmental issues, it is in the interest of Argentina as well as Chile to let Barrick Gold to finish the construction of the mine, to employ the local people, and to pay local taxes.
Conclusion
Pascua-Lama is too big and Barrick Gold has invested too much money into its development to only throw it into the trash bin. Barrick Gold will be looking, and some sources say that it already is looking, for ways how to complete the mine. Pascua-Lama has a huge potential to become a major catalyst for the Silver Wheaton's share price. If Barrick Gold decides to go it alone or if it decides to bring in a new partner, the markets will attribute a higher value to the current streaming contract held by Silver Wheaton. If Barrick makes another streaming agreement with Silver Wheaton, the impact on the share price will be even stronger. It would make sense for Silver Wheaton to increase its stakes on Pascua-Lama.
Followers
|
106
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
1734
|
Created
|
09/01/05
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |