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 : International Precious Metals (IPMCF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: HungryLion who wrote (24946)	11/8/1997 6:23:00 AM
From: Wildcat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

Walter? Is that you? Wildcat

To: HungryLion who wrote (24946)	11/8/1997 12:43:00 PM
From: Rod Currie	Respond to of 35569

From your quote, "Joe Adamson mentioned that IPM was under the SEC's watchlist long ago. I wonder if they got warned to clean up their act." Your comment above implies that 'research' has/had been done in this area and that substantive information had been collected that suggested that IPMCF 'was in trouble' with the SEC. . . . I would be very careful about posting unsubstantiated 'hearsay'. Some months back I went 'round and 'round with Joe on this item as, technically, he should not be able to get such information as it is confidential. He gave me the number of NASDAQ Surveillance [which, incidently, is where he said he got the information]. NASDAQ Surveillance does _not give out this kind of information. I also contacted both the SEC and the Federal Reserve Board for further clarification - no news. At that time, IPMCF was not marginable. It subsequently became marginable via FED decision. Their decision not only incorporates required price levels, but also surveys for any 'anomolies' that might preclude the issue's acceptance as a 'marginable stock'. I highly doubt that if IPMCF was on a specific 'SEC watch list' that it would have been made marginable. However, could IPMCF have been 'under surveillance'?? Yes. _All NASDAQ issues are 'under surveillance' at all times. So ??? While I am a holder of IPMCF shares I am neither in favor of, nor against this company, contrary to what my prior CIS posts might suggest. However, I _do make sure to check out both my data _and my sources. In the interests of promoting valid data exchange on this forum it might be helpful if you were a little more careful about the 'information' that you might spread around. While I am sure that both negative and positive opinions are tolerated this forum's members are owed at least the courtesy of 'attempted honesty'. Perhaps a good way to demonstrate this to the members is by using your real name when you post. Surely, you have nothing to hide, no? If you can't be honest about your own name than how much more/less honest can we expect your posts to be??? Rod Currie [Hollywood Beach, Ca.]