Were there any other silver producers that outperformed Santacruz Silver this year?

Maybe the only way to improve on SCZ would be with LEAP calls on CDE bought back in 2024 when it was near $2/share.

Yeah, Coeur Mining (CDE) has had a pretty good run this year and the last 2 years really (until the last 2 months).

If we go back over 2 years to the Nov 2023 low of $2.00, then it went up nearly 11.8X to the peak this October 2025 at $23.61. That’s impressive price appreciation for a PM producer of their size.

https://cdn-ceo-ca.s3.amazonaws.com/1kjt2em-Coeur%20Mining%20-%202-year%20daily%20chart.JPG

SCZ share price presently reflects Q3 earnings based upon $40 silver and trades at a PE multiple of 11.
Most comparable mid-tier and senior producers trade at multiples over 20x earnings.

The Q4 earnings report due late February will reflect silver north of $55.
Presumably SCZ will then rerate even higher to match those industry peers trading at 20 plus times earnings.

It will be epic.

SCZ share price presently reflects Q3 earnings based upon $40 silver and trades at a PE multiple of 11.
Most comparable mid-tier and senior producers trade at multiples over 20x earnings.

The Q4 earnings report due late February will reflect silver north of $55.
Presumably SCZ will then, FINALLY, rerate even higher to match those industry peers and their 20x earnings multiples.

It will be epic.

Hi Blazesb. Yes, I agree that when Q4 earnings get posted, it should be another catalyst underpinning a better valuation in Santacruz Silver, because of just how much higher the silver and zinc prices were in Q4, on top of the fact that Q4 is usually a heavier-weighted production quarter for the company.

Thanks for that additional information DT. Maybe Graphene will show up on the 2028 list then.

Stories from J THE LONG… LOL

Agreed DT. Great point on knowing the source of the info one is ingesting.

I felt pretty good about sourcing my information on Cerrado from the corporate presentation, their news releases, and then directly from Mark Brennan, the CEO of Cerrado. In general this is the best pathway for due diligence to get direct information.

In contrast, when I listen to other pundits or investors theories it gets me turned around and focused on non-core things, instead of the main investing thesis. Quite often, I got positioned in companies that had great operational turnarounds, or that made significant enhancements to a resource or project economics or production throughput expansion, by blocking out all the naysayers and speaking directly with the company and finding out what the actual goals were and assessing if they were realistic or not.

Sometimes management teams are very well intentioned, but there is a clear roadblock to their work strategy from financial constraints or experience in a given area of mining or stated versus realistic timelines, and yellow or all out red flags…. even though other newsletter writers or investors may love it.

Then many times, I’ll find hard-working laser-focused teams, advancing a better asset or suite of assets than the market is giving them credit for, and after pulling back the layers, it still looks very compelling. Quite often I have to block out the opinions of others during the due diligence process and want to come to the conclusion to invest or not invest on my own research and risk/reward criteria. Then afterwards I get other people’s opinions and find out if they agree or don’t agree.

Sure, there are sharp people in one’s circle who’s counsel should be valued and some people’s unique vantage point or opinion may unlock something not previously known. However, more often I have to ignore the vast majority of other opinions as they tend to be way off-base. Most of my biggest winners the last few years were on stocks that many would take a rude swipe at, only focusing on a particular challenge with one area of the business, but then ignoring all the positive progress being made in many other areas of the business that would eventually catch up and address their concern (costs, revenues, grade, deposit size, mine life, funding options, etc…). Sometimes people would make a joke about a stock in mixed company and they’d all chuckle about it, completely dismissing a stock as an investing thesis. Then over a medium amount of time that company or subsector would just smoke their company or their hot picks or area of focus, and then it would be time to chuckle on the other end of that table.

It’s funny how many times when I’d lay out the thesis for a company to outperform in what seemed like a logical perspective, and then people that are in the industry will take swipes at the idea and list all the reasons that company or management team will be a dog, or isn’t ‘high quality’ only to eventually see that the company did actually deliver on their goals and executed on value creation and became high quality, but after running multiple-fold during the journey.

Then once the stock is up 100%-300%, and starts getting much more recognition and broader coverage within the sector, THEN they’ll agree that it is a “good stock.”

It’s uncanny how many people (yes even many well known thought leaders and newsletter writers) will have trashed a stock/project/team at much lower levels, when the vision was clearly mapped out… only to then jump onboard the train and celebrate a project or team and even become cheerleading shareholders once it’s becomes so much more obvious and much of the easy money has already been made.

I guess this will always be the way of the world, but a key criteria that has served me well for a long time is to do initial due diligence strictly based on publicly facing information first, then reach out to management to clarify their strategy and talk specifics, and then decide if it makes sense to invest in. Then after that, even if I really like a stock, I’ll still use TA to look for good entries for accumulating into pullbacks or testing of support.

Most of my biggest wins the last few years were in companies very few of the sector “experts” were even discussing or hyping, and most of them were works in progress, with a few warts and hair to deal with, but they had solid plans to address them. With certain teams I believed their turnarounds or growth initiatives would pan out, even when there were many doubters and flat out haters to contend with. Then when those teams executed and saw massive appreciation in shareprice and market cap, then the sector talking heads would finally agree… “Oh yeah… XYZ is a great project and team.” (I’d have to bite my tongue and shake my head at it all… but ultimately don’t care… to each their own).

My only goal is to make money by taking compelling shots at good risk/reward setups and hope that there are more winners than losers, or that the winners grow so big they amortize the opportunity cost or overall costs of the losers. To do that I find that going directly to the source and blocking out the peanut gallery is crucial.

Hi Ex, after reading your paragraphs above for me I would say that the most important point that you mentioned (although I like all your thoughts) is that in investing and in life it is dangerous to become one of the crowd and to always place your trust foremost in yourself and in your own thinking. DT

Yes, that’s the main takeaway.