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 10:32:00 AM
From: Larry Brubaker	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." Charles: IPM had a much larger market cap than GPGI and MXAM because of the expectation THEY created that they had and could recover bigger numbers, and were soon going to prove it. When they didn't prove it, IPM's market cap went down to be more comparable to MXAM and GPGI. Not sure what the story is with NAXOF, but I would guess they will run into a similar debacle as IPM if they don't supply 3rd party verification of their claims.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next