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 (31465)	4/6/1998 11:03:00 PM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (2) of 35569

No Charles, wasn't at the AGM. This isn't an attack on you or those who are long on the stock, but Struthers' comment today, if true, is IMO the most outrageous thing I have heard to date about IPM. I'm not going to bother to go back and count, but PR after PR during the late 1996 - mid-1997 period mentioned .20 - .25 opt. These higher results (than what IPM was previously reporting) were attributed to their breakthrough recovery process, not to an anomalous value from some hot spot. If what Ron says today is true, then the best thing I can say about IPM's PR's is they were misleading. Of course I have already stated my opinion ad nauseum they were misleading because they were suggesting they had a viable economic recovery process when they didn't. But this, if true, is an order of magnitude worse, IMO. I don't agree that shareholders were stupid for extraplating a value based on IPM's .25 opt. I certainly believe shareholders (myself included) were naive for believing anything this company had to say.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next