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 and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Canuck Dave who wrote (44260)	7/8/2007 2:22:10 PM
From: loantech	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78422

Hello Dave! I think after last Thursday and Friday maybe things are looking up in the gold and silver world?

To: Canuck Dave who wrote (44260)	7/8/2007 2:42:27 PM
From: koan	Respond to of 78422

I examine your statement below CD: Canuck Dave: "Well, unless BWR retreats back under a dollar (not likely at this point) and the warrants become worthless. With more leverage and potential reward comes more risk. But what reward! And you're right about the lack of a time value in the warrants. They trade pretty much at the strike pretty well all the time. With BWR rocketing up, I would have thought somebody would have started gobbling the warrants, but it apparently doesn't work that way." CD koan: Let's examine your statement above and assume the stock and wt are at parity as they have been pretty much all along lately CD. Let's put the stock at $3.37 and the wt at $2.37 for sake of argument. So, what if the stock retreats right back to a dollar? Well, anyone who owned the stock just lost $2.37 (the value of the wts right now). But anyone who owned the wt will lose something less than that, because the time value is still there, so it will not go to o. I would guess the wts would go to about .25. So with the wts you lose less. So this addage you quoted above: "With more leverage and potential reward comes more risk." is not correct which was my main point. cheers