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 : ECHARTERS -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Matt C. Austin who wrote (1188)	11/7/1997 11:17:00 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3744

well well well. No recommendation was made of PFG stock in my newsletter. I followed it for 1.5 years and quoted it. I reported their news and commented. I did not rate it as a buy. If you were a subcriber you may have known that at the time a spec buy was a short term possibility on market moves, not a fundamental buy. It was speculative because of the possibility of a hit on the Cerro Blanco which still has not been properly drilled. A fundamental buy was of a much different nature. I mantained throughout that the chances of the Diablillos zone adding anything to the price of the stock were slim and that the stock was fundamentally overpriced and all this has come to be true. I did at the time recommend Crystallex and Gitennes who saw some success and increase in stock price. poke poke poke. but it don't save your rosemary's baby. ------------------------------------------------------------------

To: Matt C. Austin who wrote (1188)	11/8/1997 12:41:00 AM
From: Yorikke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3744

Matt, He still features the stock on his lists. The point I was trying to make in this regard is that it a speculative stock, which implies a great deal of uncertainty. On the matter of the Diablos, the only real find of Pac Rim to date, Charters was saying is was not going to 'Make' the stock. Unfortunately he was right. But, Pac Rim does have other properties that have much speculative potential....so, he could say both with out really contradicting himself. Thank you for your coherent reply, which, quite frankly, is more than I should expect considering my outburst of frustration. regards, mnmuench