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 : Corner Bay Silver (BAY.T) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Silver Super Bull who wrote (4327)	6/20/2002 11:05:58 PM
From: Canuck Dave	Respond to of 4409

Right on, DB. Some more transparency from the company would be nice. The value of the option is the big wild card in the amended deal. The more I look into options, the more it seems that we may have over-reacted. Basically, how much would you pay for the right to purchase PAA at any point in the next 5 years for 12$ if the "risk free" interest rate is 2%? That's the essential conundrum. Certainly more than a buck. Two? Five? Six? Would the costs of investing 6$ today and losing that 2% interest be a worthwhile bet that PAA will be sufficiently higher at some point in the next 5 years? How much would you bet? Options are scary beasts, but that 5 year horizon could make the warrants irresistible. For no money down, you get all the upside potential if silver really busts out. Interesting. CD

To: Silver Super Bull who wrote (4327)	6/20/2002 11:47:11 PM
From: Claude Cormier	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4409

<As some may recall I thought the original deal between PAA and BAY was a poor deal for BAY, all things considered.> I do not have that feeling. It was a very good one. I think. <If PAA discovered something they really didn't like, they would probably have walked.> Right. < On the other hand, what is BAY's motivation to accept this "amended" deal? > Maybe they think the warrants will carry very high premium that will make this deal about equal with the first one. >And with them out-of-the-money, it is even less desirable. Well they are on-the money. Right on! >In my opinion BAY should have never agreed >tothis "amended" deal, and their lack of communication as >to what has caused this situation is not reassuring. We may know more when they (PAA/BAY) will publish the feasibility study I guess. CC