CCB vs ZEN truth board Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : CCB vs ZEN truth board

ZEN.V 0.930

-7.0%

2:17 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Bills16 who wrote (498)	12/17/2015 6:05:08 PM
From: sense	Read Replies (3) of 12350

"Invested despite reading yours and Chief's constant bashing for the last two years". Why would you assume any new investors were well and properly informed of the nature of the risks involved BEFORE they were induced into investing... instead of perhaps becoming aware of the issues ZEN faces only after the fact ? Did AE direct them to read the CCB vs ZEN truth board before they invested... to make sure they were fully informed and knew about the specific (and very well reasoned) objections some have been voicing ? It appears you are assuming that must have happened ? Personally, I don't believe that anyone rational would ever have invested in ZEN if they'd seen the PEA and the CAPEX projections... and actually understood what they meant. ZEN's own numbers pretty clearly show their Albany project is wholly UNECONOMIC... and that's true even including ZEN's grossly inflated and wildly irrational pricing assumptions from the PEA, which are so grossly out of whack with market reality and market trends that they appear they are bordering on fraudulent. Using more realistic pricing assumptions would make things look vastly worse... but, how much does that matter when the inflated numbers you are using already show that the future value to be produced would probably be less than the value of the money invested ? The PEA also fails to rationally connect the economic dots between the costs and the potential resulting value... and, worse for ZEN, fails to connect the dots from COST, QUALITY, and QUANTITY to market demand. Following the PEA... the company's PR made other issues clear, revealing that some of the product quality issues, even if benefits in one market, inherently eliminate ZEN material from practical utility in some of the other markets that their pricing assumptions and PEA based valuation depended upon. I don't know what any of the new investors were told about any of that... but, I assume they know what they were told... and how that compares to what they've come to understand now about those issues ? None of that seems to me to in any way involve anyone other than ZEN's principles ? If the new investors were induced to invest while being fed unfiltered/uncorrected numbers based on what was delivered in the PEA... rather than numbers that were corrected for the things already known (and certainly after the fact) to be in error in the PEA... then ZEN might well have a real problem.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next