Adrian Day: Sure, and thank you, Mike, very much for having me on. Of course, I remember your mom and dad. We’ve spent — not so much in the recent decade — but in years past, we spent a lot of time together.

Yeah, it’s interesting. I first came to gold, as many people do, not from an investment point of view, but from a political economy or hard money point of view, if you like. I studied history at the London School of Economics. I obviously looked at the gold standard and how well it worked. And so I was attracted to gold from that angle. My very first investment — not when I was at the London School of Economics but actually when I was a little school boy in short pants — was a gold Britannia coin! So that’s how I came to gold originally.

1/4 oz British Gold Britannia Coin

And then, of course, when I got interested in investing, it’s a short, sometimes not so short, leap from gold itself to gold mining companies.

So I’ve been managing money now since 1991. Our firm actually is a global money manager. We invest in global equities, we invest in stocks around the world. We’re primarily equity, but also do currencies and occasionally we do bonds. And then, we also manage, as you mentioned, the Euro Pacific Gold Fund, which is exclusively gold and silver.

Adrian Day: Yeah, I think you laid the groundwork very well actually. To me, the central factor affecting gold and gold prices is money creation. And I use the word money in quotes, because, of course, the Central Banks aren’t actually creating money — they’re creating credit, or fiat money. That’s the central factor. And when you have excess money creation — a very loose monetary policy — although they’re two different things, it goes along with low interest rates, and that is fundamentally bullish for gold.

So I think the scenario, the environment that we have now, is extremely favorable for gold. Now, the question people ask then is, “Well, if that’s the case, why hasn’t gold gone up?” And I think there’s some obvious answers to that. We’ve seen, as you said, competition from Bitcoin and other assets.

Frankly, and this is not derogatory, I think that your typical GameStop investor is not choosing GameStop over gold. I think they’re two different categories of investor. With Bitcoin, I tend to think that the move from gold into Bitcoin is very much at the margin. Now, there’s no question that you’ve had outflows of money from gold ETFs for basically all of this year, and you’ve had an inflow into Bitcoin. That doesn’t mean the two things are correlated or causal; they’re just happening at the same time. So there’s definitely some of that — but I think it’s at the margin.

You’ve also had interest rates move up in the US. The 10-year treasury has gone from about 0.6% to 1.65% in seven weeks. In percentage terms, that is an astonishing jump in interest rates. And obviously, other things being equal, when interest rates move up, gold goes down. So I think that’s definitely part of what’s driving the narrative.



But if we put it in context, number one, rates at the short end haven’t gone up at all. In fact, in the US and in many other countries around the world, they’ve actually declined this year. And number two, even after an almost tripling of the yield on 10-year bonds in the US, they still have a negative yield; the yield is still less than inflation. And for gold, fundamentally, it’s the positive yield that matters, not the nominal yield. So I think the effect of higher interest rates has been really overblown.

The other thing, of course, is we’ve seen rates triple. And then, there’s a sense that maybe rates are going to continue to move up, because, again, here in the US — and I’m sorry to be so US-centric — recent 10-year and 3-year treasury auctions have had a rather mediocre response. Judging on the bid and the tail and so on, they were fairly mediocre. So there’s a sense of, “Uh-oh, there aren’t enough buyers even at these prices.” And that’s a concern.

Again, I don’t think rates are going to move up meaningfully in the US. I think you’ll get some rates moving up on things like junk bonds where the current yield is quite pathetically low. The spread between treasuries and junk is just idiotic. A high-yield company, by definition, is where there’s a meaningful risk of the company going bankrupt.

And when you’re lending to such companies with a 4% return — to me, that’s a symptom that there is just so much excess money around. And when you have excess money, it has to go somewhere. It can be $50,000 Bitcoin; it can be a company that has a significant risk of going bankrupt and only getting 4% on your money. But I don’t think treasury yields, or AAA yields, are going to move up meaningfully.

We’ve seen Japan, Australia, and, most recently, Europe — all take action to stop the increase in rates at the long end. The Fed, last week, decided not to take action but to talk instead; the Fed has always preferred jaw, jaw over war, war! And you can see that it didn’t really have much of an impact. Bonds rose for the first half hour and then fell sharply… meaning that bond investors — and I think this is significant — are demanding a higher return when they lend money for the longer term. And that’s a significant change.

A year ago, before COVID, even though rates were at such historically low levels, bond investors — and I don’t mean mom-and-pop bond investors or people who put 10% of their portfolio into bonds — but people who are specialists in bonds, the majority of them were all still bullish on bonds even though yields were so low, because they said:

“If interest rates go negative, my quarter of a percent on my bond is going to pay me in capital gains; it’s going to be an incredible return!”

And they were all still very, very bullish. That has changed this year with optimism on the economy — based on the COVID vaccinations — and bond investors are now not so sure that rates are going to continue to go down. And if you don’t think rates are going to go down, you want more than half a percent for lending money to the government for 10 years. And that’s what’s been happening; the bond investors are demanding more money.

But I think eventually the Federal Reserve will follow Europe. And if they have to, they will take action to suppress yields at the long end. And that’s very easy for them to do when they are allowed to print as much money as they want — again, money in quotes — with no restraint. It is obviously incredibly easy for them to suppress rates at the long end if they want to, and I think eventually they will.

So I think all of the reasons that you see for gold being weak are real to some extent. But I think the perception of them is way overblown.

Adrian Day: You make a very, very compelling point there, Mike. Most mining companies are doing quite well at the current price level, especially when you consider that oil — which is the largest cost input in running a mine — despite the recent run, is still significantly below where it was in 2011-12… remembering that in 2011, 2012, and 2013, oil was over $100 consistently and got up to $140 a barrel.



The second largest cost input in running a mine are the local costs. So the cost of labor, the cost of building and maintaining a camp; not the big items you have to import but all of those local costs. And one of the largest factors determining local costs is the price of the currency.

So again, if you look at the price of what we call commodity currencies; the Australian dollar, Canadian dollar, South African rand, Chilean peso. If you look at those, take the Australia dollar, for example; it’s moved up in the last six months from a little over $0.70 to $0.76. That’s a pretty big move for a currency, right? But go back to 2011, and we were looking at the Australian dollar over par… an Australian dollar that was 50% higher than it is today.

Obviously, things like that have an immense effect on costs. The point of that diversion being that the price of gold is pretty darn good today. Of course, it’s not as high as it was at this point last year. But the costs are that much lower than they were the last time gold was at $1,700 an ounce, back in 2011, 2012, which generally points to higher margins for mining companies.

Now, if gold were to move up to $2,000 on any sustained basis, it would most likely be accompanied by increasing inflation which we’re already seeing; cost inputs are going up, food is going up, commodities are going up.

It’ll also be accompanied by higher commodities across the board similar to what we witnessed from 2004 to 2008; as the price of gold went up, so did the price of oil and all of those cost inputs of building and running a mine. So as you can see, margins didn’t really expand in that scenario. I think what you’re going to see is a situation similar to that where mining costs increase along with the gold price.

But it’s very interesting. I mean, if you look at Newmont, the No. 1 gold miner in the world, and Barrick, the No. 2 gold miner in the world, along with several others that have actually priced their year-end reserves at the $1,200 range — when gold trades at $1,700 an ounce… they’re very, very happy!

Adrian Day: Oh, absolutely! More than quite impressive… I think it would be very impressive! Remember what we saw in the first half of last year, from March to August, when gold had that incredible move? In US dollar terms, it was up over 40% in a little over four months. That’s a phenomenal move for an asset like gold. And during that period, we saw a huge rally in the gold stocks with the vast majority more than doubling during that period.



So I think we’ll easily see something like that here again soon. You’ve got to remember — as you implied in your earlier comments — that the sentiment on gold right now is pretty weak and is particularly weak among generalists. And I think, frankly, that’s one of the reasons why gold has declined as much as it has for as long as it has. You had a lot of generalist investors jumping in as gold was moving up. And now they’ve all moved out.

So you need gold to make a solid move, and, more importantly — to make a sustained upward move. For instance, a sustained move above $1,800 an ounce is where I believe you’re going to start seeing a lot more generalists returning to the sector. And these stocks are only so big, so they can move very, very rapidly as we all know. I’m talking about the big ones here; not the little ones.

Adrian Day: Well, I didn’t actually say I was keen on either Barrick or Newmont. As it happens, I think Barrick Gold (NYSE: GOLD)(TSX: ABX) is just ridiculously inexpensive at the moment. It’s a very well-run company, especially since they merged with Randgold and with Randgold’s Mark Bristow taking over as CEO of Barrick.

The company has literally been transformed from $4 billion in debt two years ago to now being cash positive. Their mines are all operating well, and the cost of running the mines has improved. G&A costs have also been slashed, which is important because it was a very bloated company prior to the merger. So in my mind, it’s an incomparably better company than it was just two years ago, and certainly 10 years ago, when the price was almost triple what it is today.



So Barrick is a very, very good company. I’m also a fan of some of the royalty companies as they give you less downside risk than the mining companies while also providing exposure and leverage to higher gold prices. People tend to think that the big royalty companies, while good in a down market for protection, aren’t very good in an up market. There’s certainly some truth to that. But if you were to pick, say, forty gold mining companies, there would be several that would outperform the royalty companies in a strong market. Yet, I will also say that, on average, the big royalty companies would do just as well as the average mining company in a strong market at a much, much lower risk factor.

So I like Franco-Nevada (NYSE: FNV)(TSX: FNV) a lot. That’s the biggest, obviously. But it’s also, in my mind, the best. It’s very well-diversified. They’ve got revenue coming from over 40 different assets. No single asset represents more than 13% of their revenue. So very well-diversified with a strong balance sheet and a great pipeline.



Royal Gold (NASDAQ: RGLD), which is a US company, is another one that has, in my mind, a lot of upside ahead of it.



Osisko Gold Royalties (NYSE: OR)(TSX: OR) is a hybrid royalty company that’s been sort of punished in the market because it’s not a pure royalty company. As you probably know, they’ve spun off their development assets into Osisko Development. Osisko Gold Royalties owns most of it; they own about 75%. Over the course of time, they’re going to reduce that and just keep the royalties.

So I think as you see the transformation in Osisko Gold Royalties — it’s a very strong company.

You also asked me about the mid-tiers. Honestly, I feel like a kid in a candy store right now! There are so many good quality companies at very good prices. To me, B2Gold (NYSE-Amer: BTG)(TSX: BTO) is a superb company.

While it’s possible that their Fekola Gold Mine in Mali will have a slightly less good year this year as compared to last year — it’s still a very good company at a very good price with a solid dividend.

And I would still buy Premier Gold Mines (OTC: PIRGF)(TSX: PG), which, as you know, has been bought by Equinox Gold. And then, they’re spinning off all of their assets in Nevada into something called i-80. If you buy Premier today, you also get Equinox, which is Ross Beaty’s company; a great company that’s growing very, very well and selling at a good price. And then you also get the i-80.



So you can still buy those assets at a discount today by buying Premier; not much of a discount because the transaction is almost complete. But yeah, there’s a couple of majors along with a couple of mid-tiers.

Adrian Day: Yes, absolutely… and we own several. I do, nevertheless, think the space has become just a tad overcrowded recently. I mean, in just the last year, there’s probably been seven or eight to hit the market. Now, some of them were existing companies, like Elemental Royalties, which had been a private company for about five years prior to going public.

Some of them are run by people who’ve been in the royalty business a long time, such as Nomad Royalty (OTC: NSRXF)(TSX: NSR), which was formed by a couple of people from Osisko Gold Royalties and so on. There’s also some brand new ones, so it’s become a little crowded, which means there’s increased competition for royalty and streaming assets.



What we’ve seen recently, particularly with buying existing royalties, is that prices have just become, in most cases, shall we say, a little overdone. Some royalties are being sold with a non-discounted internal rate of return of zero, which essentially means you’re trading dollars and hoping for the commodity price to go up or for exploration upside. Naturally, you might see exploration upside, so it may not be a totally unwise thing. Yet it’s always nice to get some kind of return up front, especially when you are buying non-producing assets where there is some risk.

The key for these companies, really, is to become more and more diversified, at which point the stocks see multiple expansion. For instance, you can have a royalty company with one royalty; it might be the best royalty in the world. But with only one royalty, they’re not going to trade at as high a multiple as, say, a Franco-Nevada that boasts 40 different royalties. Having said all that, we own several of the newer ones; all good companies run by very good people.

Adrian Day: Sure. I mean, I do like Metalla Royalty (NYSE-Amer: MTA)(TSX-V: MTA). But of course, that’s been out several years now and that’s not such a small one anymore. And I mentioned Nomad Royalty, which, again, is not such a small company.



Among the smaller ones, I like Elemental Royalties (OTC: ELEMF)(TSX-V: ELE) a lot. The people… they’re young, they’re dynamic, and they have some senior, experienced people on the board as advisors. So you’ve got a nice combination there.



I think Star Royalties (TSX-V: STRR) is going to do well. Star Royalties is a royalty run by Kevin MacLean, who’s been one of Canada’s top fund managers for many, many years. Interestingly, he’s not taking a salary. So his return comes from the stock going up and eventually paying a dividend. So he’s completely aligned with shareholders. And he’s not the only one; all of the leading people at that group are similarly aligned.

In terms of growth, even if these companies do everything properly, it’s going to take them a bit longer to get there simply because there’s so much competition for royalties and streams these days. And, keep in mind also that mining companies have greater access to capital in the equity markets than they did three or four years ago.

Three, four years ago, an established royalty firm could go to a mining company and say, “We will buy a royalty or a stream… these are our terms… and so on.” Well, gosh, that’s a little bit rich, isn’t it? “Well, you can go and raise a hundred million dollars in the market if you like.” And, of course, the mining company suddenly realizes, after talking to the bankers, that they cannot so easily raise a hundred million dollars in the market.

Today, of course, the mining companies are more than capable of raising money in the market — so you’ve got increased competition there as well.

Adrian Day: Yeah, that’s an interesting question, Mike. I would say management is number one. For me, management is critical… and critical even with the largest mining companies.

I mentioned Barrick earlier which has had an absolute transformation due to the appointment of a single individual, Mark Bristow, as CEO. So management is critical in my mind.

Mark Bristow, CEO
Barrick Gold Corp.

And the smaller the company, the more critical it becomes. Of course, it’s a two-edged sword because if you have a small company that’s relying on one individual — God forbid anything happens to that individual or he says the wrong thing on Twitter and is forced to resign (laughs!) — it can have a major detrimental effect on the company.

Balance sheet is also critical. Now, there is a difference to me between the big companies and the smaller exploration companies. I’m not a geologist so I have no edge over lots of other smart people in looking at a particular property and trying to decide whether a project has exploration upside. What I can judge, though, are people and balance sheets. And those, to me, are the top two.

And I guess the third one would be history; what they’ve done, and did they do what they said they were going to do. So, with a smaller company, I will take great management with a lousy property and no cash over a great project, lots of money, and lousy management. That’s because lousy management, even if they’re not crooks, they’ll manage to spend the money and won’t get the full reward out of the project. I’ll go for “people” over “project” every time!

Mike, many of the stocks that have been my biggest winners of all-time — and I’m talking many thousands of percent returns over time — the interesting thing is that these companies started with a project or an asset or a business plan that subsequently changed. So, again, people and their history of getting things done for shareholders are the most critical things.

Adrian Day: Yeah, that’s another interesting point. I mean, I’m sort of willing to go anywhere at the right price. Yet, you expect a pretty good discount if you’re going to, say, somewhere like Venezuela or some other risky country. And it’s especially true in exploration. In exploration, you’re taking enough risk as it is; all sorts of risks including the commodity price, the geologic risk, etc. Do you really want to add political risk on top of all those things? My answer is no!

And I know there are plenty of very, very smart people in the business like the Lundin family, Rick Rule, and many others who are much more willing than I am to go into risky jurisdictions. But my thinking, as I said, is that you’re taking enough risk anyway — so why multiply it?

Adrian Day: Yeah, and the problem with resource assets is that you can’t move them, and you literally have to spend all your money up front! So you spend a decade or so, along with tens of millions of dollars, exploring an asset. Let’s say you find something of value, and you spend a billion dollars building it. Well, now you’re stuck! You can’t move it, and your only option is to shut it down if you don’t like what the local government is doing.

So if the government decides they want to increase taxes on the asset, you have no choice but to pay up. And if they threaten you with expropriation — well, you’re basically out of luck!

Adrian Day: Right! So yeah, jurisdiction does mean a lot to me. Now, having said that, all countries present some degree of political risk, even Tier-1 jurisdictions like Alberta. Even a low-risk, first-world country can impose new taxes, or, as in the United States, stop a pipeline from being built, etc.

Of course, we could name hundreds of examples, whether it’s a specific thing, like stopping the Keystone pipeline, or in Alberta, increasing taxes on oil companies, or just the general macro climate of increasing taxes and making permitting difficult and so on. It really comes back to the amount of money you’re paying for the risk you’re taking on.

Adrian Day: Yes, I think so. I mean, on a macro basis, the companies that are producing gold cannot discover enough gold to replenish what they’re producing — so they have to acquire. If you’re Barrick or Newmont and you’re producing 5 million ounces a year — or Yamana Gold at 2 million ounces — no company wants to say to their shareholders, “Hey, our production goal for the next five years is to shrink!” Naturally, nobody wants to say that.

We’ve gotten away from this mantra of growth-at-any-price, which is a good thing. Yet, at a very minimum, companies want to at least stay where they are production-wise. And so there has to be more acquisitions.

Adrian Day: Mike, that’s a good question. I do think the dollar is definitely one factor. I’m not overly concerned with the strength of the recovery because I think it’s pretty clear that not all countries or industries are going to be recovering rapidly. And secondly, the Federal Reserve has made it very clear that they do not intend on tightening even following what we anticipate will be a strong year of economic growth.

I think we’re looking further out. So a very strong economic recovery would have to be accompanied by the Federal Reserve tightening, along with other central banks, and I don’t see any indication of that any time soon. If you look at Europe, Japan, and the US — there’s no indication that these banks are going to cut back anytime soon.

To me, the biggest downside factor for gold is sentiment.

Critics will tell you that the problem with gold is that gold doesn’t have a yield. So the analysis of gold is a lot more tricky and depends much more on sentiment than most other assets. If you have a company that’s trading at 10X earnings and is paying out a 3.5% dividend yield and is consistent year after year… well, there’s only so much lower it can go because the value is backed by fundamentals. With gold, there’s really no limit to how low or how high it can go because sentiment plays such a large role.

So I think the biggest risk with gold at the moment is the potential for this negative sentiment — of course, not among gold investors but among the broader investment public — continuing for whatever reason.

Adrian Day: Yeah, Mike, good point and an interesting observation. I do think they’ve moved a little bit too far, too fast — particularly the equities. And you’re beginning to see inventories in China starting to build up slightly. That’s sort of your first indication that demand might pull back a bit. If you look ahead two to three years, I think metals like copper and nickel are going to be extraordinarily strong. Copper, I would say, even more than nickel because you’ve got far less opportunity for substitution with copper.

As you know, with nickel, you can replace a lot of the nickel in a battery with other elements; they’re more expensive at the moment but the substitution is possible. With copper, that substitution just isn’t there. I’m always careful talking about physical shortages, other than for a short period of time, because shortages are typically taken care of by price. At the right price point, there is no shortage — there’s just frustrated would-be buyers.





Yet, with copper, let’s say you have a genuine inability to be able to increase supply dramatically for the foreseeable future. In that case, most analysts would say there’s a physical shortage coming.

With copper, as you know, the mines take a very long time to build. From discovery to production, they can literally be decades in the making. Even from the time a board of directors gives the go-ahead to build a project, you’re still looking at 7 to 10 years before the start of production.

Of course, this differs quite a lot from gold where gold mines can come online fairly quickly. For copper, it’s quite reasonable to look at copper projects around the world that are in development, and at the depletion in existing mines, and make a reasonably good assessment of how much copper potentially could be produced in 3 to 5 years. And when doing so, it’s pretty evident today that there will not be enough copper coming online to meet that demand.

So I think over the next few years, copper in particular — but also nickel and many other base metals — are going to be super strong.

Adrian Day: Well, not really. The problem is that the mining companies have moved up even more dramatically than the metals themselves. Take, for example, a company like Freeport-McMoRan. It’s gone from, my gosh, $5 per share a year ago to $30 today. That’s a pretty darn good move. And a lot of that is justified. But if you have a slide, even a small, temporary slide in the copper price — that stock falls back quite a bit.

So one of the things I’m doing is I’m looking at mining companies that have a significant byproduct in a metal that I like.

For example, I mentioned Barrick earlier. About 5% or 6% of Barrick’s revenues come from copper. Obviously, you’re not going to buy Barrick as a copper miner. Yet, when you own Barrick, you’re owning some copper with it. So that’s an example of what I’m doing and what I like.

Another company I like a lot is Altius Minerals (OTC: ATUSF)(TSX: ALS), which is a resource royalty company but non-gold. Potash is actually their number one revenue source. Copper, at about 30% of revenue, is number two. Obviously, if the price of copper comes down, the royalty revenue they receive goes down… but it’s very well-diversified.

It’s got potash, copper, nickel, lithium, coal, and renewables. In the current environment, you’re not going to see the whole complex going down at the same time. Also, things like potash and coal are not very correlated with, say, copper and nickel and so on.



So you’re getting a lot of diversified exposure in a company like that. In terms of actual base metal miners, I don’t think I own any at the moment to be honest.

Adrian Day: Yeah, absolutely! Even before the green revolution, silver typically would have these spurts — often toward the end of a bull run — that were far, far stronger than that of gold. And there’s lots of reasons for that. Part of the reason is just because of its lower price point. So as gold goes to, say, $2,000 an ounce, there are people who can’t afford to buy an ounce of gold. But they can afford to buy a few ounces of silver. So as a market develops, you get a natural transition toward the less expensive product. That’s one reason.

And the other reason — and this is important — is that most silver today is a byproduct, meaning it’s not from primary silver mines. And so it might be a byproduct of lead or it might be a byproduct of zinc or some other metal. Now, if you’re a lead miner in Bolivia, and the price of silver goes way up, you’re not going to go out and build a new lead mine… because the silver is a by-product, right? And so the point is that silver production does not respond to price movements as much as, say, gold or copper where you have a lot of primary gold and copper mines.

And so when the price of silver starts moving up, you get investors buying physical product and you also get ETF movements. And ETFs are more important for silver than they are for gold in a bull market. Plus, you’re not getting that increase in supply. And of course, now you add in the green energy revolution — and that’s just one more factor adding upward price pressure to silver.

Adrian Day: Sure. I’ll name a big one first. To me, Pan American Silver (NASDAQ: PAAS)(TSX: PAAS) is the gold standard in the silver space. And below $31 per share — it’s a superb buy!

They have two free options that are not factored into the current stock price; the Escobal Silver Mine in Guatemala and the undeveloped Navidad silver deposit in Argentina. These are two very large, world-class silver projects that are on hold because of local opposition, etc. But eventually, one or both will come into production, which will boost the stock price tremendously. In the meantime, it’s a great company, period.



One I’m looking at — I think my favorite at the moment — is Fortuna Silver Mines (NYSE: FSM)(TSX: FVI), which is at a very, very attractive price today. It’s currently below $7 per share. They’ve built a new gold mine in northern Argentina; the Lindero Mine. Of course, Argentina is not the easiest place in the world to operate. Yet, with that said, I think it’s the least expensive of the better gold mining companies out there.



On the smaller end, there’s an interesting one in Sonora, Mexico called Magna Gold (OTC: MGLQF)(TSX-V: MGR). It’s really a silver company so you might say it’s time they changed their name. They just recently put their San Francisco Mine back into production. They’re focused on consolidating a lot of smaller silver mines in the area. Good management, well-financed, and it has some leverage to silver as well.

Adrian Day: Sure, and I’ll answer your questions in reverse order then. That “change of course” you mentioned, really, is number one for me. And it could be that the manager retires and a new one comes in. Or it could be a takeover. Or it could just be the company consistently failing to do what they said they were going to do.

My number-one rule is that, if I buy a company for A, B, C & D — which doesn’t necessarily mean I’m right by the way — but I end up with E, F, G & H… well, I’m going to sell and reevaluate. I may decide to come back in at some point. But I don’t often just hold through fundamental changes.

And the way I do that is in the actual buying. I divide companies at one extreme into core holdings such as Franco-Nevada. And at the other end, I have my short-term speculations. For me, the critical thing is remembering why you bought something and not constantly second guessing yourself by overreacting to short-term price moves.

You don’t want to say, “Okay, this is a short-term speculation, and I’m buying it for this particular drill program. I think the results could be very good.” Then, the drill results come out; they’re lousy, and the share price is cut in half. Then, you change to, “Well, maybe it’s a core holding now because it’s too cheap to sell.” I think you’ve always got to focus on why you bought something and stick with that.

And similarly, at the other end of the spectrum, if you have Franco-Nevada as a core holding, and the price of gold goes down and the share price goes from $150 to $110 — well, that’s a pretty big drop in anyone’s book. Yet, because it’s a core holding, you don’t go and start putting 20% stop losses on it.

As I said, it’s crucial to remember why you bought something and what you’re expecting to get out of it. Of course, that doesn’t mean being overly stubborn and riding something all the way down. What I’m saying is you want to avoid constantly second guessing yourself. That way, the sells come more naturally from your actual buying process.

Adrian Day: Oh, sure. I appreciate that, Mike. And it’s been wonderful spending some time chatting with you as well.

So we manage money in separately managed accounts on a discretionary basis. These accounts are not available to residents of Canada, I’m afraid, as we’re not registered in Canada at the moment. Although Canadians, if they’re interested, can send me their email, and once we’re registered, I’ll let them know. But we can’t take their account at the moment.

We’re very flexible on minimums. Of course, it needs to make sense for the client and, as well, for us. But yes, we’re very flexible on minimums. And we offer, as I mentioned, global as well as gold-focused accounts.

Your readers can reach out to me at AssetManagement@AdrianDay.com or they can visit our website at www.AdrianDayAssetManagement.com and find information there and ask questions.

Adrian Day: Absolutely! My pleasure, Mike.