@brianchulook market treatment is always challenging to...

@brianchu

look market treatment is always challenging to interpret - lots of different people making lots of decisions for different reasons

but imo the difference is basically aqg flagged a very long down sequence - which was deeper than forecast - but it was against a backdrop where company had told people it was going to be high capex + higher risk as they brought on the additional operation

so thats really not a big black mark against mgt because investors had already told to expect negative cycle.  investors generally are understanding of some capex overruns and that rl is often different to the drawing board

rsg by contract basically said it would be steady state and effectively kept a higher sp value

once though it failed in that deliver (last dec then march qtrs) - market had to start marking it back - and it gets a bigger black eye not just for capex overrun - but because investors feel misled and so they take a more cautious stance on future promises

you cant compare just the actual outlays - its the outlays vs what mgt told mkt to expect - and then ultimately what the inherent value of cashflow from the new ops is + capital value of assets

Dont forget - AQG was roughly half it share price not 6 months ago - its re-rated because of confirmation the new ops are up and on track

RSG is pre that catalytic event.  RSG has a much bigger gold endowment and potentially a much bigger earnings moat (exp is Syama does anything like the aisc they are touting) - but it still hasnt proven the case

thats why RSG hasnt been able to break ~$1.30 imo (albeit had a false breakout briefly)