viernes, 24 de octubre de 2014

Subsidies and Mirrors

After the bell last night, AT&T (T) reported a Q3 that missed on net subscriber adds, and earnings and sales despite the lowest level of cap-ex since Q1 2013, while offering guidance for the balance of the year that was below consensus.  The quarter and guidance was messy, and largely the result of the competitive shake-up from wireless competitors like T-Mobile (TMUS). The competition, at least on the surface, has annihilated the traditional contract model in favor of bring your own device (BYOD) or no contract device pricing, allowing for ostensibly lower monthly service charges.


Yesterday prior to the results, I closed a long stock position in T (here) that I entered back in August as I felt that my own personal experience in the last 6 weeks buying iPhones and converting my plans on AT&T was hugely confusing.  I was left with the feeling that their customer service representatives had little understanding of the new pricing schemes, while some of the literature as to the pricing of devices is either unintentionally deceptive or AT&T is knowingly ripping off their customers.  My sense was that if their report was anything like my customer experience buying new iPhones and changing plans, it could be a mess.


What becomes fairly evident is that the days of locking into a 2 year plan to get discounted device pricing could be near its end.  For instance, AT&T is offering iPhone 6 Plus with 64 GB for $399 with a 2 year contract.  But to get that pricing, you agree on their Share plan to pay a one time $40 upgrade fee and to pay $40 a month in a line charge (BYOD on this plan would be $15/month line charge, so difference of $25/month over 24 months), which essentially pays back the subsidy for the full price of the iPhone over the 2 year life of your contract.


So doing a little math, that is $399 (initial iPhone price) + $40 (one time upgrade fee) + $600 ($25/month line charge x 24 months) = $1039. That's what you are paying for the privilege to be on AT&T's new wireless phone pricing that they say is as good or better than any of their competitors.


Why would anyone pay $1039 for an iPhone 6 Plus with 64 GB when the phone with a no contract price at TMUS is $849, or $190 less??


tmob

from Apple.com



The whole situation is preposterous.  After I walked numerous customer service reps through the math, none had a good answer for why this was the case.  Many tried to argue the merits of their Next plans, which are also VERY confusing, where you spread out the purchase price of the phone and in some cases you don't own it but turn it in for a new one in 12,20 or 24 months (full on Rent-A-Center model.) The Whole thing is a MESS. As a 10 year plus AT&T customer who has paid the company probably close to $25,000 in that time period, I was disgusted by their misinformation, and their own employees lack of understanding of the pricing landscape.


So the days of the subsidies on hot NEW phones is going away, but most of the U.S. carriers still don't know how best to do that for their own bottom line and churn.  I suspect we will see high churn and possibly lower upgrades as a result, which will be bad for the carriers who MARK up the phones.  It could also be bad for phone manufacturers as upgrade cycles may be more pronounced initially, possibly like this iPhone 6 cycle, but consumers may keep the phones longer, especially if the upgrades are merely for more memory and better battery/camera/display.


Oh and riddle me this Batman… how does the new iPad Air 2 with 64 GB and enabled for cellular cost only $729, $120 less than the iPhone 6 Plus with 64 GB without a contract??


iPad2

from Apple.com



If there is NO subsidy on the iPhone at T-Mobile, then how and why would a device such as the iPad Air 2 with 64 GB with these dimensions:


from Apple.com

from Apple.com



…made with many of the same materials and similar components of the iPhone 6 plus with 64 GB with these dimensions:


from Apple.com

from Apple.com



COST LESS??


Is the conclusion that the much smaller, less resource intensive iPhone is more complicated to manufacture?  But considering how many more iPhones sold than iPads (39.3 million vs 12.3 million in fiscal Q4), it is safe to assume that Apple gets much greater economies of scale on iPhone.  Teardown of iPhone 6 Plus places costs for 64 gb model likely around $250 (here), while last year's iPad Air showed cost to build of about $300 (here).


I guess my conclusion is simple – if consumers are no longer going to get ripped off by Wireless Carriers' ridiculous pricing plans for hardware, then consumers are not likely to upgrade every two years if they are expected to pay $700 to $900 for the new hot iPhone.  Either that, or the pricing is going to have to come down substantially to encourage this behavior. Or the business model will be unrecognizable from what we now know.


In the quarter just reported, Apple's ASPs (Average Selling Price) on iPhone of $606 well above the consensus of $566.  This is largely the result of the mix shift and intro of the 6 Plus.


So while we watch the long race to the bottom in Wireless Service charges, we could also be at a sort of AS GOOD AS IT GETS period for ASPs on high end smartphones.


In a world where much lower priced Android offerings, with ASPs around $250, dominate the marketshare at about 85% worldwide, it is hard to imagine that Apple will be able to merely hold on to the lion's share of profits on what appears to be an increasingly niche HIGH END segment of the smartphone market.


This is not a post to BASH Apple (though AT&T deserves some bashing).  It is merely stating what are important risk factors to the story at a time when it appears the investment world is in uniform agreement that this past quarter and current quarter guidance is just the start of a super cycle.  I arrive at this observation because it appears there are tectonic shifts going on in the wireless service landscape, and aside from Apple buying its own wireless carrier, I am not sure how they can emerge unscathed when it is all said and done.


This post by Dan Nathan (@riskreversal) originally appeared on RiskReversal.com






 

No longer interested email from Mining News?. Please click here to unsubscribe

AT&T keeps T-Mobile at bay, but for how much longer?






T-Mobile US (TMUS) CEO John Legere, who is waging war on his fellow carriers by cutting prices and dumping onerous terms, often points to Batman as his favorite super hero.







So you might call AT&T's (T) anti-Legere strategy a Bat Shield. Instead of matching Legere cut for cut, AT&T is basically giving its customers a price break until they buy their next phone. And so far it's keeping the Batman at bay, at least for AT&T, which reported continued subscriber growth and only modest churn for the third quarter.


The question is whether the strategy will fend off Batman over the next six months, as the arrival of new iPhones from Apple (AAPL) drives a massive upgrade cycle. Now that Batman, err, Legere is offering Apple's latest devices, too, the two carriers are more evenly matched. In previous iPhone cycles, T-Mobile didn't carry Apple's popular models. Investors are clearly worried, as AT&T shares lost 3% on Thursday, even as the overall market gained.


The nation's second-largest wireless carrier on Wednesday night reported that it added a net 785,000 monthly customers in the quarter, about double what it added in the same period last year but considerably less than Verizon's (VZ) 1.1 million gain. Over half of AT&T's so-called post-paid sign-ups were tablets, however, which bring in much less revenue per month than smartphones. Average revenue per user dropped 9% from last year.


AT&T's churn rate, the percentage of customers who defected to a competitor, was 1%, about the same as it's been all year.


Short-term strategy


So just how has AT&T been keeping customers even as T-Mobile dropped family prices, added more data and even offered to cover switchers' early termination fees?


It wasn't by matching T-Mobile's lower prices for the same kinds of plans.


Instead, AT&T is letting millions of its customers sign up for its Next plan even though they aren't upgrading their phones yet. The Next plan charges a slightly lower monthly fee but eliminates phone subsidies. So instead of getting a new iPhone, say, for $199 and paying $80 a month, a Next customer pays $65 a month but also has to pay $27 a month for the iPhone for the following two years.


By letting a customer switch to Next-like pricing before buying a new phone, the customer only experiences the lower, $65 service fee. The additional monthly installment payment for a phone won't hit until they next upgrade their phone.


So far, AT&T says it has switched about 20 million people over to the "Pre-Next" plan, as they call it. That reduces a lot of the immediate attraction of T-Mobile's cheaper plans.


But what happens when all those millions of customers want a shiny new iPhone 6 or some other hot model? They'll suddenly discover AT&T wants a much higher monthly payment and that their great, new deal wasn't so great. With the iPhone available everywhere this year, they may decide to shop on price and discover that T-Mobile is a better deal.


AT&T says so far, they aren't seeing any such problems. "Quite frankly, with 90%-plus of the people coming into our stores we're not seeing [customers leaving]," CFO John Stephens said on a call with analysts. "I won't say we haven't seen one or two, but we're not seeing any strong number, at all, of sticker shock."


Analysts aren't sure that will hold up as the rate of phone upgrades explodes for new iPhones, which went on sale at the very end of the third quarter.


Accounting-driven boost


Meanwhile, the AT&T customers who have been buying new phones under the regular Next plan have given the company a seeming boost in revenue from last year. That's just in the accounting. AT&T can count almost the full retail price of the phone as revenue immediately when it sells one under Next, compared with a drawn-out recognition of the revenue under the traditional subsidized plans.


That accounting-driven revenue boost is seemingly making up for the very real revenue that's being lost on the price cuts given to all the pre-Next customers. Adjusting AT&T's results for these factors, total revenue would have been flat instead of rising 2.5% and earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization would have plunged 12% instead of falling 4%, figures long-time telecom industry analyst Craig Moffett.


"With weakness across the board, and with the going expected to be tougher in Q4 with a full quarter of iPhone upgrades (associated churn), it is hard to find a reason to be more optimistic," Moffett wrote today. "AT&T shares remain overvalued in our view."


T-Mobile, which has said it had its best month ever for subscriber gains in August, reports its third-quarter results on Oct. 28. Analysts expect an 11% increase in revenue, to $7.4 billion, and earnings per share of 4 cents, up from a loss 5 cents in the third quarter of 2013.


So far, Legere's team is putting the hurt mostly on Sprint (S). But AT&T could fall victim to the bat soon if its "Pre-Next" strategy falls apart.








 

No longer interested email from Mining News?. Please click here to unsubscribe

Sprint Fired 452 Employees Last Weekend, Keeps Chasing Low-End Data Consumers

In an effort to maintain its position as the low-cost leader in wireless data, Sprint Corp. (NYSE: S) Wednesday announced a 1-gigabyte shared data allowance for $20 in its Family Share Pack. The wireless carrier claims that its plan doubles the data offered by Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE: VZ) and more than triples the data offered by AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T) at the same price point.




According to Sprint this is how it works:


Customers can build their own plan in three easy steps. First, choose the shared data allowance. For 1GB, it's $20 per month for up to 10 lines. Second, add data access for phones with unlimited talk and text while on the Sprint Network. The data access charge for non-discounted phones is $25 per month per line for 1GB through 16GB. Third, add your tablet devices for $10 per month per line and mobile broadband devices for $20 per month per line. There is no early termination fee and no annual service contract with non-discounted phones.



Sprint's new CEO, Marcelo Claure, said, "We're offering customers a choice – whether they need a small amount of data or are a high-end data user."


One outcome from offering customers all these choices is that Sprint is bleeding employees. Last Saturday the company fired 452 workers at its Kansas headquarters, just the first of more according to reports at The Kansas City Star. Sprint said in its filing with the Kansas Department of Commerce that it anticipates "additional reduction activity in the next few weeks."


Sprint will take a $160 million charge in its fiscal second quarter to cover the severance payments. More charges are possible the company said for future, unspecified cuts. Sprint had already fired 477 employees at it headquarters earlier this year, and the weekend cut will bring total headquarters job losses to 929 of around 7,500 people before the first cuts were made.


As long as Sprint targets the low-end of the market, both AT&T and Verizon are happy to encourage it to do so by occasionally dropping their own prices, forcing Sprint to match the lower one again. This can't go on forever — so it won't. What's not clear is which of the strategies will prevail.


Sprint's shares closed down 2.88% on Wednesday, at $6.06 in a 52-week range of $5.36 to $11.47.


ALSO READ: The 20 Most Profitable Companies in the World







 

No longer interested email from Mining News?. Please click here to unsubscribe

Subsidies and Mirrors

After the bell last night, AT&T (T) reported a Q3 that missed on net subscriber adds, and earnings and sales despite the lowest level of cap-ex since Q1 2013, while offering guidance for the balance of the year that was below consensus.  The quarter and guidance was messy, and largely the result of the competitive shake-up from wireless competitors like T-Mobile (TMUS). The competition, at least on the surface, has annihilated the traditional contract model in favor of bring your own device (BYOD) or no contract device pricing, allowing for ostensibly lower monthly service charges.


Yesterday prior to the results, I closed a long stock position in T (here) that I entered back in August as I felt that my own personal experience in the last 6 weeks buying iPhones and converting my plans on AT&T was hugely confusing.  I was left with the feeling that their customer service representatives had little understanding of the new pricing schemes, while some of the literature as to the pricing of devices is either unintentionally deceptive or AT&T is knowingly ripping off their customers.  My sense was that if their report was anything like my customer experience buying new iPhones and changing plans, it could be a mess.


What becomes fairly evident is that the days of locking into a 2 year plan to get discounted device pricing could be near its end.  For instance, AT&T is offering iPhone 6 Plus with 64 GB for $399 with a 2 year contract.  But to get that pricing, you agree on their Share plan to pay a one time $40 upgrade fee and to pay $40 a month in a line charge (BYOD on this plan would be $15/month line charge, so difference of $25/month over 24 months), which essentially pays back the subsidy for the full price of the iPhone over the 2 year life of your contract.


So doing a little math, that is $399 (initial iPhone price) + $40 (one time upgrade fee) + $600 ($25/month line charge x 24 months) = $1039. That's what you are paying for the privilege to be on AT&T's new wireless phone pricing that they say is as good or better than any of their competitors.


Why would anyone pay $1039 for an iPhone 6 Plus with 64 GB when the phone with a no contract price at TMUS is $849, or $190 less??


tmob

from Apple.com



The whole situation is preposterous.  After I walked numerous customer service reps through the math, none had a good answer for why this was the case.  Many tried to argue the merits of their Next plans, which are also VERY confusing, where you spread out the purchase price of the phone and in some cases you don't own it but turn it in for a new one in 12,20 or 24 months (full on Rent-A-Center model.) The Whole thing is a MESS. As a 10 year plus AT&T customer who has paid the company probably close to $25,000 in that time period, I was disgusted by their misinformation, and their own employees lack of understanding of the pricing landscape.


So the days of the subsidies on hot NEW phones is going away, but most of the U.S. carriers still don't know how best to do that for their own bottom line and churn.  I suspect we will see high churn and possibly lower upgrades as a result, which will be bad for the carriers who MARK up the phones.  It could also be bad for phone manufacturers as upgrade cycles may be more pronounced initially, possibly like this iPhone 6 cycle, but consumers may keep the phones longer, especially if the upgrades are merely for more memory and better battery/camera/display.


Oh and riddle me this Batman… how does the new iPad Air 2 with 64 GB and enabled for cellular cost only $729, $120 less than the iPhone 6 Plus with 64 GB without a contract??


iPad2

from Apple.com



If there is NO subsidy on the iPhone at T-Mobile, then how and why would a device such as the iPad Air 2 with 64 GB with these dimensions:


from Apple.com

from Apple.com



…made with many of the same materials and similar components of the iPhone 6 plus with 64 GB with these dimensions:


from Apple.com

from Apple.com



COST LESS??


Is the conclusion that the much smaller, less resource intensive iPhone is more complicated to manufacture?  But considering how many more iPhones sold than iPads (39.3 million vs 12.3 million in fiscal Q4), it is safe to assume that Apple gets much greater economies of scale on iPhone.  Teardown of iPhone 6 Plus places costs for 64 gb model likely around $250 (here), while last year's iPad Air showed cost to build of about $300 (here).


I guess my conclusion is simple – if consumers are no longer going to get ripped off by Wireless Carriers' ridiculous pricing plans for hardware, then consumers are not likely to upgrade every two years if they are expected to pay $700 to $900 for the new hot iPhone.  Either that, or the pricing is going to have to come down substantially to encourage this behavior. Or the business model will be unrecognizable from what we now know.


In the quarter just reported, Apple's ASPs (Average Selling Price) on iPhone of $606 well above the consensus of $566.  This is largely the result of the mix shift and intro of the 6 Plus.


So while we watch the long race to the bottom in Wireless Service charges, we could also be at a sort of AS GOOD AS IT GETS period for ASPs on high end smartphones.


In a world where much lower priced Android offerings, with ASPs around $250, dominate the marketshare at about 85% worldwide, it is hard to imagine that Apple will be able to merely hold on to the lion's share of profits on what appears to be an increasingly niche HIGH END segment of the smartphone market.


This is not a post to BASH Apple (though AT&T deserves some bashing).  It is merely stating what are important risk factors to the story at a time when it appears the investment world is in uniform agreement that this past quarter and current quarter guidance is just the start of a super cycle.  I arrive at this observation because it appears there are tectonic shifts going on in the wireless service landscape, and aside from Apple buying its own wireless carrier, I am not sure how they can emerge unscathed when it is all said and done.


This post by Dan Nathan (@riskreversal) originally appeared on RiskReversal.com






 

No longer interested email from Mining News?. Please click here to unsubscribe

Primero Mining (PPP) Jumps: Stock Rises 11.4%














Primero Mining Corp. (PPP) was a big mover last session, as the company shares rose over 11% on the day. The move came on solid volume too with far more shares changing hands than in a normal session. This reverses the recent downtrend for the company, as the stock is now down over 16% in the past one-month time frame.


In the last 30 days, the company has seen two negative estimate revisions while its Zacks Consensus Estimate remained unchanged. Yesterday's price action is encouraging though, so make sure to keep a close watch on this firm in the near future.


Primero Mining currently has a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold) while its Earnings ESP is positive.


Other better-ranked stocks in the gold mining industry include Alamos Gold Inc. (AGI), AngloGold Ashanti Ltd. (AU) and Allied Nevada Gold Corp. (ANV). All three carry a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy).


Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report >>


PRIMERO MINING CORP (PPP): Free Stock Analysis Report


ALAMOS GOLD INC (AGI): Free Stock Analysis Report


ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI LTD (AU): Free Stock Analysis Report


ALLIED NEVADA GOLD CORP (ANV): Free Stock Analysis Report


Zacks Investment Research








 

No longer interested email from Mining News?. Please click here to unsubscribe

AngloGold Ashanti (AU) Crumbles: Stock Falls by 6.4%














AngloGold Ashanti Ltd. (AU) saw a big move last session, as the company's shares fell over 6% on the day. The move came on pretty good volume too with far more shares changing hands than in a normal session. This continues the recent downtrend for AU as the stock is now down over 25% in the past one-month time frame.

The gold producer has seen a mixed track record. While current year estimate witnessed no revisions over the past few weeks, the consensus for earnings moved lower over the last 30 days. This recent price action is discouraging, so make sure to keep a close watch of this firm in the near future, and especially on earnings estimates following the recent slump.


AU currently has a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold) while its Earnings ESP is 0%.


Some better-ranked stocks in the same sector include Pretium Resources Inc. (PVG), Allied Nevada Gold Corp. (ANV) and Franco-Nevada Corporation (FNV). While Pretium Resources holds a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy), Allied Nevada and Franco-Nevada carry a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy).


Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report >>



 


ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI LTD (AU): Free Stock Analysis Report


PRETIUM RESOURCES INC (PVG): Free Stock Analysis Report


ALLIED NEVADA GOLD CORP (ANV): Free Stock Analysis Report


FRANCO NEVADA CORP (FNV): Free Stock Analysis Report


Zacks Investment Research








 

No longer interested email from Mining News?. Please click here to unsubscribe

Zacks Rank #5 Additions for Thursday














Here are 5 stocks added to the Zacks Rank #5 (Strong Sell) List today:


  • AngloGold Ashanti Limited ( AU )
  • Artisan Partners Asset Management Inc ( APAM )
  • B&G Foods, Inc. (BGS )
  • BHP Billiton plc (BBL)
  • Bonanza Creek Energy Inc (BCEI)


View the entire Zacks Rank #5 List.

 


ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI LTD (AU): Free Stock Analysis Report


ARTISAN PARTNERS ASSET MANAGEMEN (APAM): Free Stock Analysis Report


B&G FOODS INC (BGS): Free Stock Analysis Report


BHP BILLITON PLC (BBL): Free Stock Analysis Report


BONANZA CREEK ENERGY INC (BCEI): Free Stock Analysis Report


Zacks Investment Research








 

No longer interested email from Mining News?. Please click here to unsubscribe

Randgold Resources (GOLD) Downgraded From Buy to Hold












TheStreet Quant Ratings



10/02/14 - 09:07 AM EDT


Editor's Note: Any reference to TheStreet Ratings and its underlying recommendation does not reflect the opinion of TheStreet, Inc. or any of its contributors including Jim Cramer or Stephanie Link.  TheStreet Ratings quantitative algorithm evaluates over 4,300 stocks on a daily basis by 32 different data factors and assigns a unique buy, sell, or hold recommendation on each stock.  Click here to learn more.


NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- Randgold Resources 

(GOLD) has been downgraded by TheStreet Ratings from Buy to Hold with a ratings score of C.  TheStreet Ratings Team has this to say about their recommendation:


"We rate RANDGOLD RESOURCES LTD (GOLD) a HOLD. The primary factors that have impacted our rating are mixed - some indicating strength, some showing weaknesses, with little evidence to justify the expectation of either a positive or negative performance for this stock relative to most other stocks. The company's strengths can be seen in multiple areas, such as its revenue growth, largely solid financial position with reasonable debt levels by most measures and expanding profit margins. However, as a counter to these strengths, we also find weaknesses including a generally disappointing performance in the stock itself and disappointing return on equity."


Must Read: Warren Buffett's 25 Favorite Stocks


STOCKS TO BUY: TheStreet Quant Ratings has identified a handful of stocks that can potentially TRIPLE in the next 12 months. Learn more.


Highlights from the analysis by TheStreet Ratings Team goes as follows:


  • The revenue growth came in higher than the industry average of 0.7%. Since the same quarter one year prior, revenues rose by 27.9%. This growth in revenue appears to have trickled down to the company's bottom line, improving the earnings per share.
  • GOLD's debt-to-equity ratio is very low at 0.02 and is currently below that of the industry average, implying that there has been very successful management of debt levels. Along with the favorable debt-to-equity ratio, the company maintains an adequate quick ratio of 1.10, which illustrates the ability to avoid short-term cash problems.
  • RANDGOLD RESOURCES LTD has improved earnings per share by 12.0% in the most recent quarter compared to the same quarter a year ago. This company has reported somewhat volatile earnings recently. But, we feel it is poised for EPS growth in the coming year. During the past fiscal year, RANDGOLD RESOURCES LTD reported lower earnings of $2.99 versus $4.65 in the prior year. This year, the market expects an improvement in earnings ($3.02 versus $2.99).
  • The company's current return on equity has slightly decreased from the same quarter one year prior. This implies a minor weakness in the organization. Compared to other companies in the Metals & Mining industry and the overall market on the basis of return on equity, RANDGOLD RESOURCES LTD has outperformed in comparison with the industry average, but has underperformed when compared to that of the S&P 500.
  • GOLD has underperformed the S&P 500 Index, declining 5.51% from its price level of one year ago. The fact that the stock is now selling for less than others in its industry in relation to its current earnings is not reason enough to justify a buy rating at this time.
  • You can view the full analysis from the report here: GOLD Ratings Report

STOCKS TO BUY: TheStreet Quant Ratings has identified a handful of stocks that can potentially TRIPLE in the next 12 months. Learn more.






 

No longer interested email from Mining News?. Please click here to unsubscribe

As Kibali Nears Operational Steady State, Randgold Urges DRC to Facilitate Further Investment

{}
















KINSHASA, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO--(Marketwired - Oct 20, 2014) - Randgold Resources (LSE: RRS) (NASDAQ: GOLD) -- The Kibali gold mine is approaching operational steadiness as it continues to ramp up mining and production, and it is well positioned to achieve its goal of delivering an average of 650 000 ounces of gold per annum over the next 10 years, says Randgold Resources chief executive Mark Bristow. Randgold is developing and operates the mine, in which it has a 45% stake.


Speaking at an update for local media here today, Bristow said the quarter to June had seen major advances in the mine's development, including the commissioning of the first of four hydropower plants, the completion of the secondary crushing, flotation and concentrate recovery circuits, and the accessing of the underground ore. The emphasis now was on completing the development of the underground mine, commissioning the second hydropower plant, and fine-tuning the process to ensure that it consistently achieves its design targets. Another focus area was the continuing Congolisation of the Kibali management team.


Bristow noted that to date the development of Kibali had injected $600 million directly into the Congolese economy. It was also benefiting the surrounding communities by supporting the growth of a local economy - recent months have seen the establishment of banks, shops, service stations and mobile phone operations there - and by providing health and educational resources to towns and villages in the area.


"The enormous investment in Kibali demonstrates our long term commitment to the DRC. We ask the national and regional governments to match that commitment by providing a fiscal and regulatory environment which will encourage further investment, not only by Randgold but also by other mining companies. The development of a robust mining industry here will be of inestimable value to the DRC and its people and, as has happened elsewhere in Africa, could become the engine that drives general economic growth," he said.


Against this background, Bristow said, he trusted that the government's current review of the DRC mining code would produce an investor-friendly result, noting that the existing code was already skewed in the State's favour in comparison to mining codes in the surrounding African countries competing for investment, and that troublesome issues such as access to new ground and the continuing problem of illegal mining would be addressed effectively.


In a speech to the Geological Society at the University of Kinshasa earlier today, Bristow said the optimal exploitation of the DRC's mineral wealth would require an integral partnership between the mining industry and the government, which was also applicable to all other emerging countries.


"During the recent gold price boom, throughout the world both parties were guilty of seeking short term gains instead of using it as an opportunity to build sustainably profitable mining businesses. We must now urgently reconsider our complementary roles in extracting the maximum value from what are major national assets, and ensuring that the proceeds are shared fairly by all the stakeholders," he said.


CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS: Except for the historical information contained herein, the matters discussed in this news release are forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the US Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and applicable Canadian securities legislation. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements with respect to the future price of gold, the estimation of mineral reserves and resources, the realisation of mineral reserve estimates, the timing and amount of estimated future production, costs of production, reserve determination and reserve conversion rates. Generally, these forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as 'will', 'plans', 'expects' or 'does not expect', 'is expected', 'budget', 'scheduled', 'estimates', 'forecasts', 'intends', 'anticipates' or 'does not anticipate', or 'believe s', or variations of such words and phrases or state that certain actions, events or results 'may', 'could', 'would', 'might' or 'will be taken', 'occur' or 'be achieved'. Assumptions upon which such forward-looking statements are based are in turn based on factors and events that are not within the control of Randgold Resources Limited ('Randgold') and there is no assurance they will prove to be correct. Forward-looking statements are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the actual results, level of activity, performance or achievements of Randgold to be materially different from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements, including but not limited to: risks related to mining operations, including political risks and instability and risks related to international operations, actual results of current exploration activities, conclusions of economic evaluations, changes in project parameters as plans continue to be refined, as well as those factors discussed in Randgold's filings with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the 'SEC'). Although Randgold has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Randgold does not undertake to update any forward-looking statements herein, except in accordance with applicable securities laws. CAUTIONARY NOTE TO US INVESTORS: The SEC permits companies, in their filings with the SEC, to disclose only proven and probable ore reserves. We use certain terms in this release, such as 'resource s', that the SEC does not recognise and strictly prohibits us from including in our filings with the SEC. Investors are cautioned not to assume that all or any parts of our resources will ever be converted into reserves which qualify as 'proven and probable reserves' for the purposes of the SEC's Industry Guide number 7.





Contact:



ENQUIRIES:
Mark Bristow
Kibali chairman & Randgold Resources CEO
+44 788 071 1386

Graham Shuttleworth
Randgold financial director
+44 779 771 1338


Willem Jacobs
Randgold GM operations Central & East Africa
+243 991 001 222


Louis Watum
GM Kibali Goldmine
+243 994 035 464 / +243 817 153 062


Kathy du Plessis
Randgold investor & media relations
+44 20 7557 7738
randgold@dpapr.com


Website:
www.randgoldresources.com








 

No longer interested email from Mining News?. Please click here to unsubscribe

Randgold (GOLD): Moving Average Crossover Alert

{}















Randgold Resources Ltd. (GOLD) could be a stock to avoid from a technical perspective, as the firm is seeing unfavorable trends on the moving average crossover front. Recently, the 50 Day Moving Average for GOLD broke out below the 200 Day Simple Moving Average, suggesting short-term bearishness.

This has already started to take place, as the stock has moved lower by 7.6% in the past four weeks. And with the recent moving average crossover, investors have to think that more unfavorable trading is ahead for GOLD stock.


If that wasn't enough, Randgold isn't looking too great from an earnings estimate revision perspective either. It appears as though many analysts have been reducing their earnings expectations for the stock lately, which is usually not a good sign of things to come.


Consider that in the last 30 days, 2 estimates have been reduced, while none has moved higher. Add this in to a similar move lower in the consensus estimate, and there is plenty of reason to be bearish here.


That is why we currently have a Zacks Rank #5 (Strong Sell) on this stock and are looking for it to underperform in the weeks ahead. So either avoid this stock or consider jumping ship until the estimates and technical factors turn around for GOLD.


Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report >>



RANDGOLD RESOURCES LTD WS (GOLD): Free Stock Analysis Report


Zacks Investment Research








 

No longer interested email from Mining News?. Please click here to unsubscribe

Markets Down; Targa To Acquire Atlas Pipeline, Atlas Energy

View photo

.



Following the market opening Monday, the Dow traded down 0.13 percent to 16,523.35 while the NASDAQ tumbled 0.51 percent to 4,254.26. The S&P also fell, dropping 0.31 percent to 1,900.19.


Leading and Lagging Sectors


Basic materials shares gained 1.32 percent on Monday. Top gainers in the sector included Cliffs Natural Resources (NYSE: CLF), up 4.3 percent, and Randgold Resources (NASDAQ: GOLD), up 5.4 percent.


In trading on Monday, cyclical consumer goods & services shares were relative laggards, down on the day by about 0.51 percent. Top losers in the sector included Lithia Motors (NYSE: LAD), down 16 percent, and Luxottica Group SpA (NYSE: LUX), off 8.9 percent.


Top Headline


Targa Resources Partners LP (NYSE: NGLS) and Targa Resources Corp (NYSE: TRGP) announced the purchase of Atlas Pipeline Partners LP and Atlas Energy LP (NYSE: ATLS) for $7.7 billion.


Atlas Pipeline Partners LP will be purchased for a total consideration made up of $5.8 billion in cash and $1.8 billion in debt. Each Atlas Pipeline holder will receive 0.5846 units of Targa Resources Partners LP and a one-time cash payment of $1.26 per unit for a total consideration of $38.66 per APL unit.


Equities Trading UP


Atlas Energy, L.P (NYSE: ATLS) shares shot up 21.23 percent to $39.29 after Targa Resources Partners LP (NYSE: NGLS) and Targa Resources Corp (NYSE: TRGP) announced the purchase of Atlas Pipeline Partners LP (NYSE: APL) and Atlas Energy LP for $7.7 billion.


Shares of CSX (NYSE: CSX) got a boost, shooting up 12.47 percent to $33.67. Canadian Pacific Railway (NYSE: CP) has reportedly approached CSX about a potential merger, that would create a $62 billion North American railway powerhouse, according to sources, as reported by WSJ. The approach made in the past week, was rebuffed by CSX, according to people familiar with the matter.


Alnylam Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ: ALNY) shares were also up, gaining 17.39 percent to $85.52 after the company reported six-month clinical data from patisiran phase 2 OLE study in patients with familial amyloidotic polyneuropathy.

View more earnings on BZSUM


Equities Trading DOWN


Shares of Lithia Motors (NYSE: LAD) were down 16.42 percent to $67.58 after the company lowered its Q3 earnings forecast.


DryShips (NASDAQ: DRYS) shares tumbled 18.55 percent to $1.52 after the company announced the withdrawal of its public senior secured notes offering. Imperial Capital downgraded DryShips from Outperform to Underperform and lowered the price target from $4.00 to $1.40.


Shutterfly (NASDAQ: SFLY) was down, falling 8.53 percent to $42.96 as Bloomberg reported that Silver Lake Management LLC has decided not to pursue acquisitions of Shutterfly, as well as Snapfish from Hewlett-Packard Company (NYSE: HPQ), after failing to reach an agreement, according to a source.


Commodities


In commodity news, oil traded down 1.34 percent to $84.67, while gold traded up 0.46 percent to $1,227.30.


Silver traded up 0.50 percent Monday to $17.39, while copper rose 0.08 percent to $3.04.


Eurozone


European shares were higher today. The eurozone's STOXX 600 gained 0.34 percent, the Spanish Ibex Index rose 0.72 percent, while Italy's FTSE MIB Index climbed 0.82 percent. Meanwhile, the German DAX surged 0.60 percent and the French CAC 40 rose 0.39 percent while UK shares rose 0.44 percent.


Economics


Chicago Federal Reserve Bank President Charles Evans is expected to speak today.

See more from Benzinga

  • Infosys Jumps On Upbeat Earnings; Microchip Technology Shares Decline
  • NASDAQ Slides 1.2%; Manitowoc Shares Dip Following Cautious Outlook
  • Markets Mixed; Fastenal Earnings Meet Estimates









No longer interested email from Mining News?. Please click here to unsubscribe

Randgold Resources Limited: Opportunities But Also Challenges in Africa

{}









JERSEY, CHANNEL ISLANDS--(Marketwired - Oct 22, 2014) - Randgold Resources Limited(LSE: RRS) (NASDAQ: GOLD)







RANDGOLD RESOURCES LIMITED
 
Incorporated in Jersey, Channel Islands
 Reg. No. 62686
 LSE Trading Symbol: RRS
 NASDAQ Trading Symbol: GOLD


OPPORTUNITIES BUT ALSO CHALLENGES FOR AFRICA'S GOLD-PRODUCING COUNTRIES


Kinshasa, DRC, Wednesday 22 October 2014 - The looming undersupply of gold will create opportunities for mineral-rich African countries but they will have to compete aggressively for shrinking exploration dollars against each other as well as the rest of the world's gold-producing regions, says Randgold Resources chief executive Mark Bristow.


Speaking at the IPAD Democratic Republic of Congo Mining and Infrastructure Indaba today, Bristow said during the gold price boom the mining industry as well as its host governments had focused on short term gain instead of sustainable profitability. The global industry's reserve base had consequently diminished in quantity as well as quality and production would inevitably continue to decline. With exploration budgets also decreasing, mining companies would now be even more selective than before about where they will invest their money.


Bristow said that while the DRC was endowed with abundant mineral wealth, it had performed poorly relative to its African peers in attracting the investment that could enable it to build its fledgling gold mining industry into a substantial and sustainably profitable sector of its economy. Among the reasons for this was uncertainty about the outcome of a DRC government commission's current review of the country's mining code.


"The question all concerned must ask themselves is this: Will any changes to the existing code promote the DRC's international competitiveness, or will they damage its already fragile position in the investment market? In other words, will they build an industry capable of delivering more Kibalis or strangle it in its cradle?" Bristow said.


"The commission's initial work created a real concern that the country was heading down the wrong road. Since then, however, a dialogue between the commission and the mining industry has evolved a position which is starting to compare with those of more attractive emerging country jurisdictions. The main item still being debated at this stage is the stability clause. Given the long term nature of any mining investment, the government's pledge to honour its side of the commitment is obviously essential."


Click on, or paste the following link into your web browser, to view the associated PDF document:


http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/9923U_1-2014-10-22.pdf





Contact:




RNS
Customer
Services
0044-207797-4400
rns@londonstockexchange.com
http://www.rns.com







 

No longer interested email from Mining News?. Please click here to unsubscribe

Barrick in the Australia Pacific: Why gold production is down

{}






Barrick Gold: Overview of the world's largest gold mining company (Part 8 of 16)


(Continued from Part 7)


Assets


Barrick Gold Corporation's (ABX) Australia Pacific unit includes its 95% interest in the Porgera mine, its Cowal mine, and its 50% interest in the Kalgoorlie mine. In its ongoing portfolio optimization efforts, Barrick sold off its other two interests in the Australia Pacific—Yilgarn South and Plutonic—and divested its interest in Kanowna mine.




Each mine described


  • Porgera mine – Located in Papua New Guinea, it is a 95%-5% joint venture with the Papua New Guinean government. Barrick's share of gold production in 2013 was 482,000 ounces at AISC (or all-in sustaining costs) of $1,294 per ounce. As part of the company's portfolio optimization efforts, the mine plan for Porgera was revised to focus on higher-grade underground areas.
  • Cowal mine – Located in Central New South Wales, Australia, it is an open-pit operation. Cowal produced 297,000 ounces of gold at $746 per ounce in 2013.
  • Kalgoorlie mine – Located in the town of Kalgoorlie, Western Australia, interests in the mine are split 50-50 between Barrick and Newmont Mining Corp (NEM).

Why is production declining?


The Australia Pacific unit contributed 25% of the company's production in 2013, or 6890 thousand ounces. That percentage will fall to 18% in 2014. Following asset sales from this division, further decline is expected. Plus, Barrick expects this division's operational costs will increase from $994 per ounce in 2013 to $1050 per ounce in 2014. The reasons? Increased mining costs at Kalgoorlie and Porgera, due to a mine-plan change—high-grading.


Barrick's peers, including Newmont Mining Corp (NEM), Freeport-McMoRan Inc (FCX), and Randgold Resources Ltd (GOLD), are also facing increasing costs. As a result, mine-plan changes have been initiated at these companies as well.


The Market Vectors Gold Miners ETF (GDX) invests in big gold producers, while the SPDR Gold Trust ETF (GLD) provides exposure to the spot gold prices.


Continue to Part 9


Browse this series on Market Realist:


  • Part 1 - An investor's guide to the world's largest gold mining company
  • Part 2 - Must-know: Where Barrick Gold operates and at what cost
  • Part 3 - Cortez: Production decreasing on falling grades






 

No longer interested email from Mining News?. Please click here to unsubscribe