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 : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lorne who wrote (49451)	2/22/2000 9:53:00 AM
From: Ken Benes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116896

Options one and three are correct. The shareholders have been and will always be an annoyance to the senior producers whose management believe that the company is their own personal candy store. Ken

To: lorne who wrote (49451)	2/22/2000 11:19:00 AM
From: goldsnow	Respond to of 116896

Not long ago COMS (Three-COM) was sued by unhappy shareholders..(lawyers..<g>0 why? poor management? stupid decisions? No-price drop from 65 to 25? Now..(2 years later) the price is $70, same management, same product, same prospect, different sentiment..

To: lorne who wrote (49451)	2/22/2000 2:13:00 PM
From: Enigma	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116896

"But in the case of larger producers such as ABX it makes less sense to turn over ownership of the company from the shareholders to bullion banks" It makes no sense - because it is a legal impossibility - which you may not be aware of - I have no idea of the extent of your knowledge of stocks and shares, etc. But Ken knows about this sort of thing yet he panders to you - because it suits his argument. The shareholders own the company - period. If a company goes bankrupt the assets are placed in the hands of a receiver - and the shareholders stand last in line. But we are discussing a going concern here.