Hello DavidA and all,
I don't expect many here will buy into this promoter's stuff. Here are the corrections:
1) Messina bankable feasibility is due sometime before Nov 19, 1999. This should include details on how SUF plans to pay for the acquisition and details of non-recourse project financing.
2) Dr. Jennings is 65 years old and has stated that he would like to spend more time on regular things like golf.
3) Dr. Jennings owns about 1.8 million shares, much closer to 6%, depending on how you count the far out-of-the-money options.
4) While I believe Dr. Jennings is "pissed off at the stock price", he was also very annoyed when the stock first dipped below $5, and several times in the past 6 months as it has eroded. To paraphase what many analysts/observers are saying, "SHOW ME", don't tell me.
5) Dr. Jennings returned from London/Europe last week, after spending 10 days or two weeks "promoting" SUF on the continent. Check the volumes since the big volume day of the announcement he was stepping down. If it wasn't for the downside volume after the downgrade by the analyst at Yorkton, there'd be precious little volume at all.
Clearly, the market (analysts, investors, shareholders, etc.) seem to have little, or no confidence in the mgmt of SUF. With the many important developments over the next while (Messina, Camafuca, Klipspringer, etc.) it is crucial that all attempts be made to restore credibility right now.
The assets of SUF, its intrinsic value, have not changed greatly since the AGM, but the share price is down over 50%. If this doesn't scream from the rafters that the "market" has lost confidence in mgmt, what exactly is the message?
Its time for concerned shareholders to impress upon the board of directors just what a crucial point SUF is at right now.
It is time for an honest, open evaluation of every facet (pun intended) of every project/operation. Time to provide answers to the what/when/where/why/how questions dogging each project area.
The short position is 0, according to the paper this past weekend. Clearly, the buyback isn't working as intended.
I believe it is time to answer the question: "Who at SUF bears responsibility for the erosion in share price from over $10 to the present daily new lows?"
Just my thoughts,
Confluence |
