Hey, Dan. There was no BS in our comments. If you think so, that is fine with us. However, Trimark has already reported net redemptions and in a meeting last evening our people at one large mutual fund company (no names for obvious reasons) advised us they are throwing out all the support they can to sales reps who are inundated with redemption requests.
The fact is, investors are jittery and fund contributions are way down. As we said, this is by no means the only answer to the latest selling but it is plausible it accounts for something.
On the other hand, why would we BS? What is in it for us? MIQ does not need protecting. They have a great property, great results and a great deal with a major that has just announced drilling is to begin in June. With all this news out only last week, who else but a mutual fund fighting redemptions would park 60,000 shares on the offer?
In our opinion, it is a bigger stretch to believe that individual investors held on to MIQ for this long, read the announcement by Kinross regarding upcoming drilling...and then decided they just couldn't wait any longer.
Disagree all you want but calling it BS implies we are either lying, misleading, making excuses for the company or leading a hidden agenda. Anyway you slice it, that's just not nice. We've been covering MIQ since last summer. Since then, they delivered the results and they delivered the deal. There were some delays but they delivered just as we said they would. If we didn't BS in the bad times, we are not about to start as Kinross warms the drills for "several high
quality targets."
Disagree all you want. Challenge the drill results on geological grounds. Tell us Kinross should have paid $30 Million. Tell us the redemption theory is not supported by mutual fund data you have seen. Give us an alternative theory like "running a box to cause a shake out". Any or all of these would be acceptable. Just don't tell us we're "B.S.ing" you.
Regards,
Agora |
