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: go4it who wrote (28764)	12/1/1997 9:41:00 AM
From: O. H. Rundell	Read Replies (1) of 35569

The thing that I don't understand is we are seeing these exact same numbers or better from GPGI, Mxam and Naxof but you don't believe that IPM doesn't have it without 3rd party verification? I don't understand that. Chuck, I wouldn't bet the ranch on any of the dds. What makes IPM different IMO is that their claims don't match what has been verified. Neither GPGI, nor MXAM, nor CHIP have that problem (since they have no verification ) -- well, I am not certain that is precisely true with regard to MXAM. Naxos seems to me to be a bit of a different story as they are beginning to get verification. Still, I wouldn't want to take a large position in Naxos without, at least, verification of the second recovery stage. Chuck, I've changed my approach to the dds since before the AGM (thanks to Forbes and Rod and some research by myself and others), and have come around to Claude's way of thinking. I follow the stocks closely and am prepared to invest heavily upon verification. For me the reduction in risk is worth the reduction in reward. I know this may seem "short sighted" to you; but it better fits my situation and personality. O. H.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next