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: TrueScouse who wrote (27114)	11/17/1997 11:54:00 AM
From: Alan Vennix	Respond to of 35569

Right on, Howy. I support your analysis and think it will be conservative in the end, but if I had extra cash I'd certainly be a buyer now - as it is I'm holding patiently and have no intention of selling any of my shares until we're fully valued with 3rd party info, which I firmly believe will be at a significantly higher level than what we're currently seeing. Let the shorts have their hour/day. It won't last for long. Alan

To: TrueScouse who wrote (27114)	11/17/1997 11:56:00 AM
From: Anne Lamb	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

I want to be clear here that its not that i think any less of what we have at IPM..i think we have the goods..I, like Donald, think there were a million ways to make this PR without hanging us out to dry..one sentence!! like.this is NOT what we feel is representive of the grade..etc..anything..when Naxos reported same type of numbers they also put in non chain custody..if IPM feels those numbers are still good..they could have also..as it appears to me..they are saying that .03 is it.Hope they do some repair work quick. WHile i'm at it..the PR for MGAU was so drab that no one took time to realize that it was great news!! they are , last i checked, down to .71.. no reason for that.

To: TrueScouse who wrote (27114)	11/17/1997 12:12:00 PM
From: Furry Otter	Respond to of 35569

<<I think low 3s is a very fair price>> Actually, I was referring to low 3s as a selling price <g> Very good post Howy! I see no short covering, little institutional action either way ...vol at 600k and change, cut it in half, leaves about 300k...lots of retail activity, but that is about it We blew through the support in the 4s, thanks to the MMs, who opened us at 3. Didn't really get a chance to test the 4s, did we? <gg> I wish to hell Bateman would have let us know what they got via recovery...they are simply wrong, these numbers are relevant, because we all want to know what is there...understanding that the recovery details have to be worked out. Look at the price, the market thinks all we have is .03. Not telling us what they really have is BULLSHIT And I agree with Chuca, BD not being available last week to sign off is even more BULLSHIT Now Bateman should go to where IPM found great recovery numbers, fire assay, whatever, and tell us what they find. We have a right to know what this property has. Regards, Otter