Marcos, et al.,
Marcos: The adjective 'inane' in my post wasn't specifically directed to you but, rather, was something of a blanket statement with respect to a number of posts that have appeared here over several months. I don't think I would have used it in reference to "observations of possible political risk". However, there is a big difference between observations of possible political risk (which might be levelled in almost any jurisdiction) and the comment "...I'm still convinced those Kazak sobs are devious bandit crooks, out to suck the unwary gringos dry." If you would care to expand upon and substantiate that comment with some convincing evidence, I might explicitly exclude the adjective 'inane' in reference to your post. If you otherwise persist in your position, so do I.
Brian: Sometimes a little context is helpful in teasing out the meaning of a sentence or a phrase. The comment with respect to a 'little shareholder hand-holding' followed, I believe, a suggestion that John Menzies bring us up to date on the status of the legal and technical due diligence. I was neither asking for nor expecting any hand-holding from other members of this thread. If you were, and were subsequently disappointed, I am sorry.
I didn't question whether the resource was actually there. I pointed out that this was one of the technical matters that constitute the technical due diligence by Standard Bank. Just two of the many differences between Standard Bank and me are: first, I am not lending Steppe US24 million; second, I have no shareholders to protect. They are going to determine that the resource is there. And I have no doubt that they will find exactly that.
As for the stock dilution, that is a matter of fact. You may choose to pretend it isn't so if you like.
With respect to why I hold the stock, there are many reasons--some of which are none of your concern. Suffice it to say that I have a certain confidence in management, particularly John Menzies, that has nothing to do with blind faith or ignoring unpleasant facts; that I am impressed with the huge potential of their land position; and that my investment adequately reflects my own risk tolerance. None of this means that I won't raise questions when and where I see fit.
Robert: You are right. The immediate and pressing question concerns Mizek financing. As for the rest, perhaps we can take it up again another time--right now I'm out of it.
Regards. |
