Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: VAUGHN who wrote (4879)	11/4/1999 8:06:00 PM
From: Valuepro	Respond to of 7235

Excellent post, Vaughn. Not having participated in the conference call, I especially appreciated some of that information. I agree with you. We have a decidedly negative tone here. I have never seen anything about the company to dampen my enthusiasm and will be buying more shares at this level just as soon as I can. I'm sure many other posters and lurkers feel the same way. Regards from California, VP

To: VAUGHN who wrote (4879)	11/4/1999 8:07:00 PM
From: Confluence	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7235

Hello Vaughn, Like you, I was one of the early investors in SUF. I have been through each of the ups and downs, from the diamond in the drill bit, to Tli Kwi Cho to Marsfontein and into the present. I believe that there are two ways of looking at SUF: the sum-of-the-parts method, where you take the company apart, value each asset, add these numbers together and divide by shares outstanding to come up with a value. I would prefer this method. The other is the net present value of future cash flow methodology employed by analysts, IRR guys, etc. This is less preferable to me. Unfortunately, the analysts and many recent purchasers of SUF were led to believe that the cash flow and earnings numbers were the reason to own SUF, with excellent blue sky potential in several areas. One director of SUF told me in a phone conversation last spring that SUF expected to have cash flows greater than $2 per share for the next many years. I would assume that others, and analysts had this same optimistic viewpoint. Since the "visiblity of cash flow and earnings" has become clouded by a lack of certainty about SUF various future projects (Messina, Klipspringer, Camafuca all unkowns today, but with great upside), it is easy to suggest that SUF pull in its exploration horns to meet its production needs. Or else they have to go to the market hat in hand. Perhaps this explains some parts of the conference call. My criticism, after years of support, is that the delaying of virtually every SUF development has cost shareholders immense amounts. For example, if SUF had delivered data on Camafuca over two months ago, as promised, then it would be known if this was a saleable asset, or had market value, or could be monetized, etc. This would have benefited all shareholders by demonstrating that Angola wasn't a bottomless money pit, and by giving a sense of confidence to the market. This is important because a market price of 4, 5 or 6 dollars would leave SUF on substantially better terms to negotiate financing for Messina. Don't take my word, call the company. So, as the share price continues to get beaten down, it is not good enough to sit by and let the market have its way. Would Bill Gates let someone screw with Microsoft (see the US Government)? It doesn't matter who the villain is. What matters is that another villain is screwing SUF shareholders right now. Just like the villains who stole Marsfontein. In the final analysis, it doesn't matter that SUF holds the moral high ground, or "has done its best". We as shareholders simply lose. We, as shareholders, have once again been caught out by SUF management. Far from name calling or whatever, or the glorification/villification of any persons, we shareholders should only be concerned with restoring our share value. That means restoring confidence to the markets, which means chasing away the nasty dragons, playing nice with analysts, kissing the butt of the institutions, or whatever it takes. Anything less is not good enough. Unfortunately, no analyst worth his salt will say anything positive about SUF until the delivery of positive developments and the accompanying slow restoration of credibility and goodwill. Its that simple: SHOW ME Best Luck, Confluence PS. For anyone with balls enough to criticize the Canadian markets as home to thieves, unjust, lacking in credibility, etc. I have a couple questions: Did you raise money in this environment? How much? When did you know that this was an unsafe country to host your business? What did you do to protect yourself and your fellow owners of your business? I think the phrases "Don't **** where you eat" and " You made your bed, now lie in it" come to mind.

To: VAUGHN who wrote (4879)	11/5/1999 12:09:00 AM
From: Shaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7235

<This thread used to be a pretty good place to exchange positive and reasoned information and I perhaps naively hope to see that perspective return> There is nothing wrong, IMO, and there is no rule that all information discussed has to be 'positive'. Reasoned, yes. Positive only, no. We're investors and shareholders, not Southernera investor relations. Discussing the share price decline, and why, is very important. Several of the callers yesterday, a part of the Canadian investment community you seem to have little respect for, brought up good points, that I happen to agree with (and no, my name is not Gull). Because they are holding hundreds of thousands of shares make me respect their opinion even more. None of those callers criticized the fundamentals of SUF. They had other concerns which were decidedly negative. I wanted to hear those concerns and I hope SUF management heard them loud and clear because (and here's a newsflash): It is those concerns that are the reason why the stock is in the tank! I am not a lemming and I don't need to read filtered, 'positive' information. I want the facts and I hope these facts, positive or negative, give me a better understanding of this company. This is investing, with real hard earned dollars, not charity work. Regards, Dean PS: On a positive note: Maybe all the negative comments signal a bottom??? Some market theories suggest this.