Critical Contrast: Gold Fields (NYSE:GFI) vs. Golden Minerals (NYSE:AUMN)

Golden Minerals (NYSE:AUMN) and Gold Fields (NYSE:GFI) are both basic materials companies, but which is the better stock? We will contrast the two businesses based on the strength of their risk, dividends, earnings, profitability, analyst recommendations, institutional ownership and valuation.

Profitability

This table compares Golden Minerals and Gold Fields’ net margins, return on equity and return on assets.

	Net Margins	Return on Equity	Return on Assets
Golden Minerals	N/A	-1,051.75%	-57.22%
Gold Fields	N/A	N/A	N/A

Analyst Recommendations

This is a breakdown of current ratings and recommmendations for Golden Minerals and Gold Fields, as provided by MarketBeat.com.

	Sell Ratings	Hold Ratings	Buy Ratings	Strong Buy Ratings	Rating Score
Golden Minerals	0	0	1	0	3.00
Gold Fields	0	4	2	0	2.33

Golden Minerals presently has a consensus target price of $1.50, indicating a potential upside of 1,720.39%. Gold Fields has a consensus target price of $16.45, indicating a potential downside of 12.59%. Given Golden Minerals’ stronger consensus rating and higher probable upside, equities research analysts plainly believe Golden Minerals is more favorable than Gold Fields.

Earnings and Valuation

This table compares Golden Minerals and Gold Fields”s revenue, earnings per share and valuation.

	Gross Revenue	Price/Sales Ratio	Net Income	Earnings Per Share	Price/Earnings Ratio
Golden Minerals	$12.00 million	0.10	-$9.23 million	($0.52)	-0.16
Gold Fields	$4.50 billion	3.74	$703.30 million	N/A	N/A

Gold Fields has higher revenue and earnings than Golden Minerals.

Risk and Volatility

Golden Minerals has a beta of 0.24, suggesting that its stock price is 76% less volatile than the S&P 500. Comparatively, Gold Fields has a beta of 1.15, suggesting that its stock price is 15% more volatile than the S&P 500.

Insider and Institutional Ownership

13.4% of Golden Minerals shares are held by institutional investors. Comparatively, 24.8% of Gold Fields shares are held by institutional investors. 5.0% of Golden Minerals shares are held by insiders. Comparatively, 36.8% of Gold Fields shares are held by insiders. Strong institutional ownership is an indication that hedge funds, large money managers and endowments believe a stock is poised for long-term growth.

Summary

Gold Fields beats Golden Minerals on 9 of the 11 factors compared between the two stocks.

About Golden Minerals

Golden Minerals Company, a precious metals exploration company explores for mineral properties in Argentina, Nevada, and Mexico. It explores for gold, silver, copper, zinc, lead, and other minerals. The company was formerly known as Apex Silver Mines Limited and changed its name to Golden Minerals Company in March 2009. Golden Minerals Company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Golden, Colorado.

About Gold Fields

Gold Fields Limited operates as a gold producer with reserves and resources in Chile, South Africa, Ghana, Canada, Australia, and Peru. It also explores for copper and silver deposits. The company was founded in 1887 and is based in Sandton, South Africa.