Well, Kenneth, for once we agree on something! You are absolutely right! Given the daily volume of the last two weeks, I think there is no question that this thread does not move AIPN stock. After all, if it did, the negative comments made here would have depressed the stock rather than cause it to advance.
No, there is clearly something else going on here. Yes, there were momentum players last week who drove the stock past $3/share but it is interesting that once those players left the party the stock did not fall apart. What that means to me is that the stock has support from some segment of the financial community not involved in momentum trading. Late last week it looked like there was orderly accumulation and consolidation going on at the $2 level.
Yesterday's price movement was dramatic from the outset due, perhaps in part to the Cohen recommendation. What was most interesting, however, was that every time sell orders (some substantial ones too) came in from the day traders and momentum players buyers showed up in droves. This suggests to me that there is some serious accumulation going on right up to just below $3/share. If all the action yesterday could be attributed to traders and momentum players, we should have logically seen some sort of a sell-off at the close. That did not happen. My guess is that the support is coming from players who see the short and long term potential of this company. So, I agree with you. We should not flatter ourselves into thinking that opinion on this thread moves the stock. There are people accumulating this stock who probably never heard of Silicon Investor.
That said, I guess I should continue my "petty" exchange with Taylor who claims that he has never heard of Huddleston. Funny, nobody else, even the other critics on this thread, has claimed not to have heard of Huddleston. And further, I have been told that Huddleston is a well-known, respected, and, by reputation, conservative oil surveyor. In fact, I was told that Huddleston and Schlumberger are among, if not, the key players in oil evaluation business. Was I misinformed?
Now, I hate to beat a dead horse, but I asked a question yesterday that I thought was a simple one. Why didn't Taylor and his fellow experts inform us peons that it is standard industry practice to value "potential" reserves at between .50 and 1.00 a barrel as did the analyst from Robert M. Cohen. Curiously, I did not get a response to that question so I will ask it again. Taylor & Co., were you not aware of that valuation standard? For days you have been telling people that 1.1 billion barrels of potential reserves means nothing until a hole is drilled, that one cannot place any value on the reserves until that hole is drilled. Then, out of the blue, along comes Keith Bossey to inform us that, yes, there is a standard for estimating the asset value of "potential" reserves. Either Bossey doesn't know what he is talking about or you guys need to brush up on your "expertise". Any comments?...and, please, the grown ups on this thread are well aware of the speculative risk involved here so you spare us yet another re-hash. Just answer the question. Is Bossey deceiving us as well when he uses the .50-1.00 number to assign an asset value to "potential" reserves?
Finally, let me remind you that AIPN has $6+ million in cash/cash equivalents, has sunk $2 million into re-tooling an asphalt refinery to meet year 2000 Federal standards (some analysts have projected that the plant could generate $250 million in revenue when it is fully operational),has obtained a 70% interest in the oil rights to a large field in oil rich Kazakstan, has in its possession independant data that suggests that there are 1.1 billion barrels of potential reserves in only 60% of the License Area, has had the forsight to partner with a company (MED Shipping) that is partly owned by Kazak nationals with strong ties to the government, has benefited from a $10/share price target from a conservative analyst at what I understand to be a well-regarded financial firm, and, has demonstrated a willingness to stand behind all of the above at an analyst meeting that it chose to organize. To say that such a company doesn't have "a pot to p--s in" is ludicrous and serves no other purpose than to damage your credibility. A guarded attitude on your part towards an acknowledged interesting, albeit speculative, situation that might very well offer rewards to the company and its shareholders would have been more credible. A willingness on your part to look at the positives and the negatives, the downside risk as well as the upside potential, in the context of a reasonable discussion would be of value to others on this thread. Unfortunately, your approach (under the guise of helping the small investor see the light) has been to, almost hysterically, claim from day one that AIPN essentially has NOTHING...not even a "pot to p--s in". Sorry, I don't buy it....and, guess what?...it would seem that the market doesn't buy it either.
So,Taylor, please answer the question about Keith Bossey's use of a standard industry measure of the asset value of "potential" reserves (.50/1.00). Either he is part of the "hype" or you are part of an admittedly minor problem existant only within the confines of this thread and largely ignored by the financial community at large. Which is it? Is Bossey's "speculative buy" with a price target of $10/share off the wall, too?
Cheers...Faris |
