In this interview, David Finch of Ixios Asset Management discussed whether the gold equities run is over, how he thinks about valuations in cyclical miners, what could drive the next leg higher, what fund flows are signaling, and how his fund is positioned across producers vs. developers/explorers and jurisdictions.
TLDR;
Finch’s core point is that despite big recent gains in gold miners, he sees valuations still low on common metrics (EV/EBITDA, P/NAV, free cash flow yields) and argues the move so far has been mostly mechanical from higher gold, not a broad multiple re-rating. He thinks the next leg depends less on gold doubling and more on new capital finally allocating (especially institutions and investors who historically avoided gold), with miners’ operating leverage doing the rest. On process, he uses spot prices and treats P/NAV as a relative comparison tool, emphasizes management/asset quality and simplicity, and generally avoids extreme jurisdiction risk rather than trying to model it.
- Gold miners can still be cheap even after a big run, because multiples have not re-rated.
— — —
Finch says many gold producers are on lower valuation multiples than at the start of 2025 when you incorporate the spot gold price, implying the sector has not become broadly expensive despite strong performance. He mentioned examples of low EV/EBITDA multiples in names like Endeavour, Eldorado, Fortuna, and Agnico and points to OceanaGold as an illustration of a company he views as inexpensive on P/E, EV/EBITDA, and free cash flow yield at spot. He frames the market’s implied skepticism as either:
A; gold has peaked and will mean-revert hard, or
B; producers will destroy value through bad capital allocation (overpriced M&A, capex blowouts, etc).
He disagrees with both and says producers have so far been relatively disciplined with a stronger focus on cash returns.
– - The next leg catalyst is capital flows, especially from investors and institutions that have avoided gold exposure.
— — —
David divides investors into two camps:
– those who always hold some gold and add miners for leverage when bullish, and
– those “Buffett-type” allocators who have historically held zero gold because they dislike non-yielding assets and find gold hard to value.
Finch says he’s seeing renewed engagement from that second group as they face questions about underperformance versus peers who owned gold/miners. He extends that to large institutions (such as US pension funds) that mostly have little-to-no gold/miner exposure, arguing that even a minority allocation shift could materially move the sector. He also downplays ETF flow signals as decisive. Although we’ve seen small inflows into GDX/GDXJ over a six-month window, 2025 overall saw outflows, while silver ETFs saw larger percentage AUM growth that he attributes mainly to retail and to the smaller market size.
– - His portfolio and valuation process emphasize spot-based comparables, simplicity, and measured jurisdiction risk, with active selection favored over ETFs.
— — —
On portfolio construction, Finch says the gold fund is roughly 60% producers and 40% exploration/development (about half developers, half explorers within that), with the largest position currently Discovery Silver (driven by its major re-rating and transition into a Canadian producer). He describes selling as non-formulaic and notes Discovery still doesn’t look obviously expensive to him on spot-based valuation. For valuation work, he says he always uses spot prices because they’re the only ones he can be certain of, and uses P/NAV primarily as a relative tool so long as he applies consistent assumptions across companies. He does not add a formal jurisdiction risk factor into NPV, instead handling jurisdiction as an art overlay and generally avoiding extreme-risk areas unless valuations are exceptionally compelling. David also told me about his qualitative checklist, which includes long mine life, tier-one jurisdictions, low costs, clear cash return policies, and low operational complexity (preferring a handful of mines across one or two jurisdictions). Finally, he argues active management can work unusually well in this sector because dispersion is massive, making an avoid-the-losers strategy a better bet versus buying broad ETFs.
David Finch Interview
VERY IMPORTANT WARNING
Please note that although none of the companies mentioned herein have paid Resource Talks for the creation of this content, this website is a business that charges for the creation and publication of content. This means there will always be a potential conflict of interest which means you can never rely on anything said herein.
By consuming this content, you acknowledge that Resource Talks and/or its affiliates and/or their personnel may own, have owned, or will own interests in and/or may have a business relationship with some or all companies/entities mentioned/featured in this publication. You further acknowledge that entities which may be referenced or featured in this publication or their related parties may hold an interest in Resource Talks or its affiliates, which may create further conflict of interest.
The information provided herein is general & impersonal in nature and meant for entertainment purposes only. The reader acknowledges and agrees that the information does not constitute a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell any security or instrument or to participate in any trading strategy. The author is not a licensed investment advisor. He is just another talking head on the internet. He might own shares of companies mentioned in this publication. Always assume he doesn’t know much more than a potato does. The mining & exploration space is among the riskiest sectors to invest in. The risk of anything mentioned in this publication is 100% loss of capital. If you don’t read the official documents provided by the company on http://www.SedarPlus.ca, you will lose all of your money.
