SOUTHERNERA (t.SUF) 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 : SOUTHERNERA (t.SUF)

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Confluence who wrote (1213)	5/22/1998 9:53:00 PM
From: cruncher	Read Replies (1) of 7235

Confluence: Only some thoughts on question #1. They are educating us because the deal that might eventual happen and this is only a thought is one that the heirs receive a value at a particular time in SUF stock and not in currency. The lower the stock, the more of it they would receive. As Gull has stated he would consider SUF stock when the price got low enough. My opinion is that SUF would never had withdraw their interdict if their wasn't a deal at hand. I acknowledge that De Beers is a powerhouse but SUF home turf is in a country that De Beers has just set up office in because of its diamond potential. My point being, a nice end to this story would be that not SUF getting the short end but the "heirs" getting the short end of the deal as De Beers from what I understand has already negotiated the property from the heirs as stated by Gull and Infoman. De Beers only has to deal with the heirs once whereas they could be dealing with SUF for a long time into the future regarding NWT, Angola and South Africa. Only a Opinion cruncher

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next