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 : JAB International (JABI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: D.McQ who wrote (1124)	11/12/1997 1:39:00 AM
From: Ben Geh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4571

It is clear that all the fundamentals for investing in this stock is still intact, no argument that about. It would be very helpful if someone can explain the current short-term technicals so that we can know roughly where we stand and what to expect for the short term.

To: D.McQ who wrote (1124)	11/12/1997 9:04:00 AM
From: Milk	Respond to of 4571

Darlene. Thanks for clarifying the situation. Milk P.S. I admire your writing style

To: D.McQ who wrote (1124)	11/12/1997 10:26:00 AM
From: DDS-OMS	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4571

Darlene, <Because the quarter ending November 15,1997 is too soon to reflect a true profit.> Of course you know that Nov 15th is the 45 day cut-off for timely filing of the September quarter--not the actual end of quarter. This 45 day filing period can be extended simply by asking for an extension--and I expect an extension will be sought. Management and office staff have undoubtedly been consumed with the #1 priority of finalizing a JV. Although the 1st quarter will show revenues--contrary to Miller's tirade--it probably will still show a loss AND a much higher production cost than the $150/ton accepted by many here. Simple arithmetic will tell why: Several assumptions for illustrative purposes 1.If the entire mining crew is involved in bring out gold-bearing ore, and all is milled, let's say the cost per ton with 1 oz/ton is the desired $150 per ounce and also, therefore, the per ton cost. 2. If 1/2 of the total miners on payroll are not involved in direct production of ore--but are involved in cutting from the Cassidy level to where the pillar 4 was--this effort expended yields no ore. Now the direct cost per ton has risen to $300. A lot of effort and payroll expense was directed early in the quarter toward reaching pillar 1, then pillar 4--so those who are expecting $150/oz/ton costs are going to be disappointed. When production is stable, maybe the $150 is attainable. I'm sure BCMD will try to separate out actual production costs from exploration costs, but the bottom line is what most will be looking at, because allocating exploration vs. production costs is obviously an extremely fudgeable exercise. Oscar--you cant win<g>. If the price had exploded yesterday and subsequently some news had come out--you would be accuse of having insider information. If the price didn't explode, then you "lose all credibility". Consider the source heaping scorn on you. BCMD's price goes up 5 days in a row and everything is coming up roses--falls a teeny on each of 2 days and we're looking into the abyss. Someone mentioned last week what a congenial, informed thread this is--a couple of down days and we turn on each other. More flaming the last 2 days than in the 2 weeks prior. Enjoyed your post!! Regards, Gary