Member Info for Danger_Mouse

No! IPO Valuation: $12.5–$14 Billion, Raising $1.27 Billion!

The percentage gain in profit margin is indeed more significant for higher-cost producers, an effect that is amplified by their lower valuation multiples. Consider an extreme example: a company with all-in sustaining costs of $3,500 per ounce would be nearly worthless at current gold prices. However, if gold were to rally sharply to, say, $5,000 per ounce, that same company's share price would appreciate dramatically, potentially outperforming lower-cost producers due to its leveraged margins. Conversely, if the price of gold were to decline substantially, the opposite would be true and these high-cost producers would face severe distress—though an astute investor would likely have exited the position well before that point. SRB is in good position. I think everyone should recycle greater profits into SRB and we either continue on this trend while others come down to us, or we break out.

Actually when the gold price rises, the higher cost producers should go up disproportionally as they have more to gain. As long as inflation pressures are in check and they are here. Look like a seller holding this back somewhat so I am happy for this to be pinned down while recycling the others into this.

Type of investors on this day are mostly traders seeking higher gains, but I agree, this should be up more.

Apologies for my typos!

No gold is best more predicted and mass bought globally including banks. If you want more gains of silver you simple leverage gold day using 2GOL. If you want even more voletility you buy 3x leverage or even 5x. I prefer gold and sage miners.

Not strange. Outflows from gold stocks to physical gold and leveraged physical gold for the similar high volatility. Also de risking into weekend but the main reason is flows into physical.

ALTN and THX had notably much lower costs but have they reported these recently? If gold prices move another leg up it is actually the higher cost producers that could benefit... not that SRB is as high as some others I have seen in the period such as GPP that sees costs explode next year. SRB could be in that sweet spot.

Why the debate on P/E/ The P/E depends on what accounting and trading update period is. Based on last results it is a P/E of 3 presuming it can do the same in H2. Because we are net cash positive to get a relative valuation against others w use EV/EBITDA and get under 3 times multiple. I know its too hard too believe so there must be something wrong with this stock, but the reserves look excellent and we can fund growth from revenue be it slower than witch debt. So the issue of low valuation must be region and region-concentration, so we take that risk knowing we can continue on this trend upwards without mean reversion if all things go well. I am new to SRB so welcome more debate on why this is so cheap and if this is some sort of dream. It could be simply because this has a low market cap or the 40k production does not today warrant a £200m-2£50 market cap. I don't know the answers.

A clown who reads forward guidance? I'll take that.

I get 2.94× EV/EBITDA figure is based on annualizing the H1 2025 EBITDA from the RNS (i.e., multiplying by 2), which assumes similar performance in H2. Conservative EBITDA of $50.00M gives a multiple of 3.1 and optimistic a multiple of just 2.8 based on EBITDA of $55.30M 2.8x to 3.1x based on reasonable forward expectations.

This still places Serabi deeply in undervalued territory, especially compared to sector averages (typically 7x to 10x+). Unless something unexpected hits H2, EBITDA should hold within this range.

Serabi added $8.28 million in cash during H1 2025, despite:

1. Spending nearly $13.9 million on capital expenditures.

2. Repaying a small portion of debt.

3. Self-funding development and exploration.

Looks like this confirms strong operational cash generation, as operating cash flow was $21.86 million, and most of the CapEx was internally funded with no dilution or new debt.

SRB is excellent value, but so is GGP who is a multi-billion dollar diversified play on copper with some gold in Aus. Not that comparable. SRB will certainly grow much faster be it relatively higher risk.

What can I say other than as a index investor I have very extremely high standards for smaller companies, SRB are going to slightly miss target production but OK perhaps I am clutching at very small straws!!! Nothing here that is really negative even paying more tax should be flipped into a positive. Also granted I see what you all mean regarding HOC so concede I am overly pessimistic here.

While hugely profitable with net cash position, as a general business there needs there greater financial discipline with some costs and forecasts are now a stretch into H2. Production costs (not all in costs) did go down a little with the increased scale but Ideally I would like more. If the gold price holds and or even goes up then SRB remains one of, if not the highest quality GARP you can buy. It remains a very strong buy.

All in cost increase smaller than I thought. This is great.

Taxes and admin costs up sharply, but valuation multiple supports this.

Results tomorrow. Market should expect inflation to have increased costs but all other numbers should come in good.

The figure of £136.9 million as the carrying value for Chrysalis’s Klarna holding comes directly from Chrysalis Investments’ Quarterly NAV Announcement and Trading Update as at 30 June 2025.

Anyway...lets not clutch at straws or count our chickens before they hatch. Starling Bank will be the main driver and not Klarna.

If Klarna IPOs at $15 billion, Chrysalis’s Klarna stake would be valued at approximately £137 million, nearly identical to the current carrying value. It will retain some as it had in WISE... but this time an IPO could be explosive *if* the environment is there as we had seen with Figma.

Can't edit posts - There should be a 'but' in there! Expensive but justified.

Would agree from a technical point of view it looks scary. While also on the other hand DCF and relative models suggest overvaluation, when accounting for Cerillion’s:

1. Very high margins,

2. Strong, consistent CAGR,

3. Debt-free, cash-rich position,

4. And pricing power in telecom billing software markets,

…the high P/E (~29–30×) looks justifiable in a growth-stock context.

However, risks include:

1. Valuation compression in rising-rate or risk-off environments,

2. Technical weakness (as discussed earlier),

3. Competitive threats or execution slippage.