Berkeley Resources Live Discussion

Live Discuss Polls Ratings Documents
Page

Ripley94 12 May 2017

Re: Im in someone else was surprised i averaged down !!!!

shugg1e 12 May 2017

Re: Im in Im surprised why anyone would sell at this level

Ripley94 12 May 2017

Re: Im in Just sold the first lot for @ 51 pShould of kept averaging down when i had chance.

Ripley94 02 May 2017

nunberbiter We will see of course.What is your position here ?

numberbiter 02 May 2017

Re: Im in I presume you spent £1,000 at 9-03am buying 2,439 shares. Unfortunately, the strategy of averaging down rarely pays dividends. It will not be long before the price is in the high 30's.

Ripley94 02 May 2017

Re: Im in Topped up @ 41p showed as sell .. was best price for day around 9am.

Damocles666 02 May 2017

Re: Recent fall Re: Now, if a company issued a prospectus saying it has a gold mine that it expected to be fully operational in five years time, would be able to produce a hundred thousand ounces of pure gold per year, for a cost of $700 per ounce, with minimal overheads, I still wouldn't invest because I don't speculate. I would wait until I knew the current selling price and current costs.--------What if they had a gold mine fully operational in 5 months (not 5 years), producing 132,000 ounces p/a (not 100,000), at a cost below your $700/oz? Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Hummingbird Resources.

numberbiter 27 Apr 2017

Re: Im in Today there are far more 'sells' at 43.5p than 'buys' at 44p. Expect further downward movement in the near future.

shugg1e 26 Apr 2017

Re: Recent fall Well look at SOLG they are worth nearly £900m on promises 4p to 43p in a yearyour point is what?

numberbiter 26 Apr 2017

Re: Recent fall I would pay $1,200' for an ounce of pure gold, if I were a gold dealer, which I am not. Now, if a company issued a prospectus saying it has a gold mine that it expected to be fully operational in five years time, would be able to produce a hundred thousand ounces of pure gold per year, for a cost of $700 per ounce, with minimal overheads, I still wouldn't invest because I don't speculate. I would wait until I knew the current selling price and current costs.

shugg1e 26 Apr 2017

Re: Im in Yep I'm back in as well look way oversold

Ripley94 26 Apr 2017

Re: Im in I'm in today @ 44p .. i had limit yesterday expire @ 43.5 p distracted this morning and went through ( D ) wile adjusting down . As happened last week with amc !!

shugg1e 23 Apr 2017

Re: Recent fall Whats your valuation for sol gold?

rickylfc5 23 Apr 2017

Re: Recent fall I think you are wasting your time waiting for the accounts we all know there will be zero revenue and lots of costs - they won't give you any steer. Revenue is still 2 years away as the mine development continues

numberbiter 21 Apr 2017

Re: Recent fall I first recommended a strong sell when the price was 55p. Since then the share has fallen 20% to the current 44p. The last time I looked at the accounts I did indeed value the company at 5p per share, which was why I would not even think about investing at 55p, or indeed 44p.So I won't invest in these shares, but the 5p valuation is not set in stone. When the next set of accounts come out, I will come up with a new figure. The point I am continuously making is that until the company proves it can make a profit and generate cash those shouting 'I'm In' are merely speculating in hope rather than judgement,

Page