Dave, let me ask you a difficult question. I have tried to reread most of your posts over the last 9 months, especially the ones in Dec. and your most recent ones. Your point seems to be currently that investors should focus on majors as they are already in production and are thus less speculative than CMR. One of the reasons you favor INCO at the moment is that you are "hearing" that talks with the Newfie govt are going well.
In Dec-Jan., when CMR was 1/2 of its current price, your point seemed to be that one should not invest in CMR because metal prices were low, demand was poor for metals, prices wouldn't recover until after the millenium, and the laterites were going to supply more Ni & Co than the world wanted. Post 701 stated "my sources tell me that it's only a matter of time before Ni & Co are shipped out of Australia." On 1/19 you posted an article from The Northern Miner stating that Cawse had entered commercial production and that by 6/30/99, 3800 Tonnes of Ni and 900 Tonnes of Co were expected from Cawse alone. Hindsight is 20/20, but it looks like "the sources" and TNM were fairly wide of the mark.
Now, please don't misinterpret me. As Jackson Browne said, "Don't confront me with my failures, I have not forgotten them."
But...
Your message always seems to be: don't buy CMR. Those that followed this advice in Dec-Jan missed 100% appreciation (I guess that's 300% if you bought on margin). Your conclusions are apparently based on information from your sources, who are never identified, not even as to profession, let alone name.
Everything I have posted is in the public domain, and on the web. Anybody can get thing's wrong (there's 2 sides to every trade), but do you think the credibility of your comments is affected by being wrong on metal prices, metal demand, CMR stock price and conclusions based on unidentified sources? Please do not take this as a personal assault because I do not intend it as such. But everyone on the thread has to discount the information posted by how credible they feel it to be.
It's ok to be wrong, and it's ok to protect sources who request anonymity; but if the sources are giving you bad info doesn't that eventually effect the credibility of your posts? |
