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: Richard Mazzarella who wrote (27386)	11/18/1997 1:19:00 PM
From: Gerald Walls	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 35569

Lee, the company convinced the funding people of something didn't they? I'm sure it wasn't the 0.045 OPT. Why would you invest in something with a 25% premium or at only 5% interest unless you knew you would make money. Now, if you are interested in conversion, would you do it cheap or expensive? Wild thinking? Maybe, walk it through. Where did you get your info (honest question, not an attack)? All I can find is the 125% mentioned in the PR and this: Q11. What are the details of the US $10 million funding? The company will issue redeemable convertible notes to several institutional investors to raise up to US $10 million. The notes will be converted at some time in the future at the option of the holders or at 5 years, and will appear as equity on IPM's balance sheet. The notes will also have a strike price that takes advantage of any upward moving share price. This allows for smaller dilution of capital as the price increases. I can't find anything about 5%. To me this looks like IPM is selling $10M in notes that will pay some amount of interest not specified here and in a maximum of five years will be paid back with $10M ($10M / 1.25?) worth of IPM stock based on the market price at that time. Is this correct? One thing I notice here is that if the price drops enough the bond holders can convert enough shares to control the company (around 50 cents for absolute control, maybe $1 for effective control). It looks to me that since the bond holders will receive $10M worth of stock regardless of the price then they would benefit from a lower stock price as long as the company is still a going concern. Help me understand here.

To: Richard Mazzarella who wrote (27386)	11/18/1997 2:48:00 PM
From: Bruno	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

A point on funding. There is a common misconception on this thread that the $10m of funding from institutions is in place. This is not yet the case. Agreements are still being discussed. Much more concerning, is the company hopes to draw down on this new funding by the end of this month. My impression is that fund managers are every bit as angry as investors for, at best, being grossly mislead and at worst deceived. Lee stop mumbling through your beard, get a grip of the company and get rid of your Mercedes Benz until you start to deliver. Alan show us what you are really made of, pull this company together and travel coach. I know you believe you have a billion dollar company here so convince the sceptics because we're capitalised below $50million today for the first time this year. Outsiders only see a vast increase in administration expenses this year, unflattering cash for shares deals, delayed property purchases, delayed results and dubious responses to legitimate shareholder's questions. I believe in the company because of Alan's reputation. I regard T. Hoare and Capital's interest as a bonus, I continue to see the desert dirts as a legitimate albeit highly speculative venture. It is now a question of whether the management are mice or men? Bruno