International Precious Metals (IPMCF) 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 : International Precious Metals (IPMCF)

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: O. H. Rundell who wrote (27941)	11/21/1997 5:34:00 PM
From: Josephus	Read Replies (4) of 35569

Hello O.H.! [Did the bulk test suddenly stop working? Wouldn't that have been negative information that would have to have been released to the public?] I'm still confused as to why IPM released these low assay numbers. It's like they "wanted" the price to drop. If they could have controlled the release of negative news about bulk tests, etc (perhaps through some means of plausable deniability or something similiar), why then this release? It's too stupid to be stupid. If we should next see a release that says, "Even though the modified standard fire assays indicate low grades, our actual recovery is just what we said it was", would the market believe it? I submit that there's a good chance the market would believe it, considering the fact that most of the market is not following this story. On the other hand, we who have followed the story now know that purposeful manipulation is coming from within the company as it is outside. Is there any other explaination? What's most unfortunate, is allowing myself to be misled - now that's stupid. Regards, StupidJody _/)_

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next