A Review of Price to NAV – Ollachea, Valentine lake

The valuation of mining companies often starts with a calculation of Net Asset Value (NAV). NAV assessment is a cumulative discounted cash flow analysis of a company’s portfolio of assets (mines) minus associated corporate and other overheads. Enterprise value (value of equity + debt – cash) can be compared to NAV. If enterprise value is higher than NAV then the company trades at a premium. If enterprise value is less than the NAV, than the company trades at a discount.

Generally, NAV is calculated using a 5% discount rate but there are often occurrences where this value will be increased (geopolitical risk, asset risk, permitting). The fact that NAV is generally calculated at 5% is very impactful. If Franco Nevada trades at a premium to the 5%NAV than that means that the market is pricing in a lower discount rate. A 2% discounted cash flow analysis is probably a value that brings Franco closer to its market price. Conversely, if Alio Gold is trading at a large discount to their 5%NAV then the market is implying that something closer to a 10% discount rate could be utilized.

Sometimes the market can be become irrational and punish projects/companies. A discount/premium to NAV analysis can be a useful way to identify “value” plays in the space.

The banks have teams of analysts that produce DCF models for each of the mining companies. I do not have this luxury. I do have, however, published technical reports, and market prices. Almost all technical reports include a summary of NPV and most of the time it utilizes a 5% discount rate. This is great. For single asset companies, I now have a view of the company’s NAV (ignoring adjustments).

Single asset companies are the most interesting as they provide the most direct view of the company’s NAV; less noise. The chart below plots project NPV as disclosed in technical reports versus company enterprise value. These are recently published technical reports that contain over 1M oz of gold. You’ll notice that the highest value is 50%. Minera IRL Limited’s Ollachea property commands the smallest discount while a group of companies are currently trading at only 10-20% of their project’s NPV.

It’s an interesting mental exercise, hypothesizing why some companies are undervalued relative to their projects. A few ideas:

  • Time/Stage: technical reports usually display the NPV as of the time that a construction decision is made, not the current time period. If we assume that the standard PEA is 6 years from a construction decision and use an 8% discount rate, the discount value is 58% when compared to the published NPV. It shouldn’t be a surprise that Valentine Lake and Mt. Todd are at such a large discount as they are at the PEA stage. Conversely, the highest ranked project (Ollachea) is currently in construction.
  • Jurisdiction: This goes without saying and explains why a project like Block 14, located in the Sudan, is not generating much share value for Orca Gold.

So how do we use this information? A value investor could look at this and see if the market is mispricing any assets. We could also look at the development path of an asset and predict a share price appreciation.

A useful example would be Valentine Lake. Marathon released a PEA on the property at the end of October which showed an after tax NPV5% close to $500M. The company currently trades at an enterprise value of $80M. A pretty strong discount but probably warranted given the project’s state. Their recent investor presentation shows that a PFS will be published in 2019 and a FS in 2020. They are having exploration success, the project looks to be improving. Obviously, there’s a due diligence component to this investment but there is a hypothesis for a re-rating over the next two years. If their discount jumps from a measly 15% to a more justified 30% in the next two years that’d provide a pretty strong return.

Seems like Valentine Lake could be an interesting opportunity.

What do you think?