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: Joe Hartenbower who wrote (29981)	1/19/1998 2:46:00 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (1) of 35569

Joe, allow me to intervene, but I do not really think it matters if that stake is a billion or 10 billions worth of PM, the $250,000 in dispute now must be resoved favorably or the ship can go down. The last time I checked, the burn rate at IPM was around $6 MM/year, they need to saty afloat (and hopefully at higher prices) to have the time to get these few insignificant millions in the coffers. Any money used for non productive goals is significant. I am not even going to address the painful question of having to possibly spend $1.1 billion to get $1 billions of PM out, this is a completely different question right now. Zeev

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next