Those of you who have read my biography know that I have spent over 40 years giving opinions on the value of public and private company shares, principally in Canada. My best guess is that I have read well over 2,000 valuation opinions written by others. Those ‘others’ include major Canadian and U.S. Investment Banking Firms, all of the large and medium sized Canadian Accounting Firms, and Business Valuation Firms.

And here is my point: One thing I always work extremely hard to ensure when I render an opinion is that the assumptions I make, and the underlying facts that I adopt, are reflected in my opinion in an ‘internally consistent’ and ‘error free’ way. Any opinion is exposed to question if its content is not ‘internally consistent’, or it is not ‘error free’, and well it should be. The simple reason for this is that if one internal inconsistency is found, or one error is found, the question that then ‘hangs over that opinion’ is: What other internal consistency or error exists? Typically in my experience, finding internal inconsistencies inevitably leads to finding errors. I do exactly the same thing when I read articles – I look for internal inconsistencies. If I find them, I then discount the author’s conclusions.

• the gold price was supportive of gold mining operations that would not be commercially viable at lower gold prices; and,

• physical gold is overpriced.

It seems to me those two comments are ‘internally inconsistent’, and that the author’s conclusion based on what he wrote questionable at best.

I suggest you focus on the ‘internal consistency’ of the media articles and commentaries you read if you do not already do that.