Equinox Partners Precious Metals, L.P. - Q1 2018 Letter
Dear Partners and Friends,
portfolio comparison to the GDXJ
Our performance over the past two years has tracked the GDXJ and HUI. There are, however, several substantial differences between our portfolios and the indices. None of our companies are found in the HUI, while fewer than half of our companies are held in the GDXJ. Moreover, our companies that do overlap with the GDXJ have substantially higher weightings in our more concentrated portfolio of 21 companies. The GDXJ, by comparison, is comprised of 73 companies.
On a like-for-like basis, our portfolio trades at a substantial discount to the GDXJ. Our producers trade at 5.4x this year’s cash flow, whereas the producers in the GDXJ trade for 7.2x. Our royalty companies trade at 14.9x this year’s cash flow, whereas the royalty companies in the GDXJ trade at 20.5x this year’s cash flow. Finally, our developers trade at $64 per resource ounce, which is similar to the index at $61.
The composition of our portfolios amongst the categories of producers, royalty companies, and developers is also a significant point of difference. Producers account for 91% of the GDXJ’s value, with developers at just 6% and royalty companies at 2.8%. By comparison, our portfolios are comprised of 49% producers, 40% developers and 11% royalty companies.
As value investors, we are pleased that our portfolios trade at a discount to the GDXJ. That said, we are better business value investors, and there are many mines we would not own at any prices. Our set of priorities for selecting companies is as follows:
1) The quality of management
2) The quality of governance
3) The quality of the underlying asset(s)
4) Valuation
Experience has taught us to discard ideas that don’t measure up on the first three points even if the valuation is particularly attractive. While marginal assets, managements and board often appear exceedingly attractive on a spread sheet, in practice they often underperform over any meaningful period of time. The run-of-the-mill gold and silver mining company is a bad business that tends to destroy capital over a cycle. Moreover, rather than simply riding out the cycle, the more marginal companies tend to practice highly pro-cyclical behavior, selling assets and hoarding cash in bear markets and spending recklessly in bull markets. As a result of habitually selling cheaply and buying dearly, these companies tend not to retain the leverage to gold or silver that the spread sheet predicts.
Our overweight in developers is also grounded in experience. Specifically, we found that developers are, on average, better able to preserve their value through the cycle than producers. Since the gold price’s most recent peak in 2011, producers have spent the better part of a decade cutting costs and depleting reserves to eke out slim margins on the ounces they produce. When gold prices turn, these companies will find themselves forced to address the dwindling life of their assets. Well-managed developers, by contrast, have an easier time reducing their level of activity and preserving the per share value of their companies. They incur some ongoing spend and dilution, but these costs tend to be predictable and manageable. And, when the cycle does turn, their assets are perfectly positioned to benefit from sustained higher precious metals prices.
With respect to the producers and royalty companies that we do own, in each case we believe that these companies will behave significantly better than their industry peers. The reasons vary for each company, but overall and over time we are confident that our managers will grow the per-share value of their companies and that this growth will be very levered to higher gold and silver prices.
Sincerely,
Sean Fieler









