Hello Vaughn,
I bow to your determination to get your point across.
Thank you for the greater detail so that I might better understand your meaning.
Thank you for directing your concerns to SUF and CJ, as they are the more appropriate respondees to your concerns.
I hope that you're able to make the AGM next year, or have some type of regular forum with SUF to discuss your concerns.
I must say, I chuckled when I read the line "a graphic simplification for the purposes of brevity" in part of your response (3rd paragraph, page 102). ;-)
I'm still going to disagree with many of your concerns, however, with the stock at $5.00 all efforts must be made by SUF to increase shareholder value.
A few points that I feel need comments:
1. When SUF has material information they are required, by securities regulation, to release it. I will assume that they abide by the law, and act accordingly. If they should choose not to report any other information, I will assume that they have a good and proper reason (competition?) not to.
2. SUF has spent a tremendous amount of dollars in the NWT, found over 50 kimberlites, many diamondiferous, but none economic yet. They have also spent much human capital, in the time of their talented explorationists, like CJ and HB. If they deem exploration at RSA, Brazil or Camafuca more important than NWT, I agree with them. If you do not, then talk with them. If still unsatisfied, then make your investment decision.
3. SouthernEra was not unilaterally stripped of 60% of Marsfontein. It might feel like that, and SUF ended up with 40%, but at one point last May/June, SUF had 0% of Marsfontein. Clearly, legal manouevring by De Beers, or the "heirs", outwitted the combined forces of Randgold and SUF. The law has been changed so that this will not happen again. Only the strong efforts by Dr. and Mrs. Jennings, the intense lobbying of many shareholders, the great help of Mr. Patrick Evans (former RSA Consul General in RSA, now a director) and the goodwill of the RSA government to right an obvious wrong forced De Beers to concede the 40% to SUF, in return for marketing rights.
It is crucial that shareholders understand that those in power in RSA know that SUF was wronged, know that SUF has provided many jobs in a depressed area, know that SUF is capable of providing more and more employment thru the quick move into production of non-producing assets (Klipsringer, Marsfontein, Messina), etc. IMHO, this will not go unrewarded in the future.
4. Trading in SUF's stock has been dominated since January by the large volume crosses orchestrated by First Mary (to the benefit of their buyer, and detriment of SUF shareholders), the occasional buying from TD, and a few annoying sellers who appear from time to time (like #26 on Wed/Thurs, and #22 today). Not that I'm defending the present share price, but to pick one bad day of illiquid trading, on the day that Aber is rumoured to be taken over by Franco, isn't quite fair, nor is your comment about assets. The market is about fear and greed, with greed in ABZ and fear on behalf of the fool trader at TK.
5. Your comments about "ownership assured assets" is a concern I've only heard from you. While I'd rather that Camafuca was in northern Quebec, I'm not sure how you can quantify this. Before Bre-X was ID'd as a scam, many people were unconcerned about owning an asset in such a corrupt country (Inco operates a nickle mine in Indonesia, called PT Indo, I think). LB told me a few weeks back that a large diamondiferous pipe has produced over 1 million carats of lovely Angolan diamonds, about 100kms north of Camafuca. Maybe, and this is the view of many South Africans, Canadians just don't understand diamond mining when it isn't as simple as "we have a really big pile of rocks with diamonds that we can get out cheaply". Maybe delisting from the TSE and listing on the JSE would be beneficial to shareholders.
5. My comment about the natives was a reference to a recent statement by one of the chiefs up there that "No New Mines" would be built. It was on an internet news service, the name of which escapes me now.
6. Good comments about RXD. Possibly a excellent shorting candidate right now if you can find stock to borrow.
7. As I stated above, SUF, like any other public company, is required only to release material information. Work product, or the internal stuff they do, is proprietary, and I am glad they hold on to it. What other company displays its internal workings? Microsoft? Barrick? (Note that if Barrick had told anyone that Bre-X had no gold, which they knew about three months before Freeport, much economic damage could have been averted)
8. You implied that I favoured a buyback of SUF stock. While I think this might be beneficial to shareholders, that was not what I meant. My point was that on days when someone is obviously selling, or wants to sell stock in a fashion that is a detriment to shareholders, SUF mgmt should pick up the phone and call anyone and everyone they can to encourage buying to offset the selling pressure. SUF should have some type of plan in effect so that 10% declines on 13,000 shares don't happen. It is irresponsible of them not to have some type of contingency plan to protect shareholders.
9. If I was told anything by SUF mgmt, or for that matter by Bill Gates or Ronald Reagan, it was because I asked them. Before you get too upset at my understanding of what I heard (I'm not always right, as I've ridden SUF from 20 to 5), CALL THE COMPANY. For Gosh sakes, I could be making this crap up. How do you know I'm not trying to set up a great short?
10. You made a point about "your way of thinking". This is correct. You have your thoughts, I mine, everyone else their own. I would suggest that all do their own thinking, find out where their personal reality lies, and then vote (buy or sell) accordingly.
That is all, and probably way too much on this subject.
Time for one or four beers!
Have a great weekend!
Confluence,
soon to be under the influence |
