RE: Its back of the envelope time13 Nov 2018 16:52
blackstout, I really appreciate your comments.
Most of us are not from an accounting background (my own is actuarial and UK personal tax, cant speak for others) so are looking at cashflows of the business level rather that minutiae of the accepted accounting measures.
Perhaps I need to rephrase. By net income I mean gross profit from commercial production at JV level, pre tax.
I don't think AAU have really defined all elements of cost , ie those currently included in the £330 per oz. I personally assume it to be the cost of production including mining , processing, plant maintenance, running costs, staff & admin costs (both where 100% employed in Kiziltepe production and where partly employed in other AAU business apportioned appropriately).
I would not expect those costs to include loan repayments (capital and interest), AAU (and Procea) costs not directly applicable the current producton operation etc., further exploration costs on JV owned prospects, or AAU costs on their 100% owned assets. The road moving is an odd one as I think it should be included in the current cost figure and amortised (think that's the right term) over the expected remaining mine life (possibly causing a restatement of past costs even if only at a management reporting level),
That is why I have questioned why people ask for there to be a dividend payment, since there is really nothing left to support that! What I was tryng to get a feel for is how profitable is current production when compared to MC. By stripping out every possible current cost from generated surplus you can of course reduce that surplus to just about zero. Looked at that way you could argue that this company would be more attractive if it gave up exploration, the Salinbas licenses and just run off current known assets at Liziltepe, Ivrindi, Kizilcuckur (and possibly Tavsan), turn the lights off and go home!
ts post.