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: BillyZoom who wrote (31399)	4/4/1998 1:39:00 AM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (2) of 35569

Robert: I don't read it that way. The 10K is quite clear that the $738,000 (which includes Furlong's $260 K) was incurred for services performed on behalf of IPM. If the situation is as you suggest (that $260,000 was Furlong's total compensation paid by IPM, MGAU, and NMCI, and a portion of the $260,000 was allocated to MGAU and NMCI) where do those allocated costs appear on the financial statements? I don't see it, so I still think the $260,000 was Furlong's IPM salary only. Regarding your point that $260,000 is not that unreasonable given that IPM had a much larger market cap at the time, I don't buy that one either. The only reason IPM briefly had a much higher market cap is because Furlong et. al. pumped the price up with "chickens coming home to roost" comments that had no basis in fact. Therefore, by your logic, Furlong was rewarded for pumping the stock up.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next