From a pure growth perspective, Kirkland is more attractive in our eyes.
However keep in mind, as a producer, Kirkland poses significantly more volatility than Franco Nevada, which is a streamer.
Since the gold selloff in mid August, Franco Nevada has lost 23.9% while Kirkland has lost 32%.
We can expect Kirkland's volatility to continue, and typically gold producers move more than the price of gold itself. A very basic example of this would be if the price of gold dips 2%, we can expect Kirkland (and many other producers) to dip by more than this amount.
The puzzling thing for us right now, is Kirkland on a valuation basis is cheaper now, than it was before the gold bull run this year. With a ton of cash on hand and zero debt, we have a feeling that Kirkland is gearing up for an acquisition. But, this is speculation on our part.
Franco Nevada however, is cheap as well. In fact, the company is trading at a 40% discount to what it typically trades at in terms of forward price to earnings.
The selloff of gold producers/streamers is overdone right now in our opinion. So both are attractive.
The question you have to ask yourself is are you looking for growth in a company like Kirkland, or are you looking for a little more stability in a company like Franco Nevada. Keep in mind, that the growth with Kirkland comes naturally with more volatility. Franco Nevada was one of the only gold companies to continue raising its dividend over the course of the gold bear market.