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: Bob Jagow who wrote (28142)	11/22/1997 11:47:00 PM
From: Rod Currie	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 35569

Bob, My main concern [among many<g>] was the provision for denying access [by shareholders] of any IPM 'document' without express voting by the Board of Directors. Since the Board was obviously 'packed' it meant that we [the shareholders] would be totally excluded from anyting IPM management didn't want us to see. While I realize that 'security' is an interest item in the gold mining business I felt that this proposed provision was being introduced so that management would be in the position to hide 'dirty laundry', should they so desire. I expressed my feelings on this on S-10 [on CIS's INVFORUM], but received little interest from other shareholders. Indeed, I was 'attacked', primarily from posters coming over from S.I. who did not want any 'negative' feedback on IPM from _anybody. Equally disturbing was the shares voting requirement that the shares _had to be voted by two days _before the AGM - a most unusual requirement. I diligently fulfilled that requirement and also wrote Lee Furlong as to why I was voting against those proposed amendments. I received no answer. I have written Furlong before and recieved no answer. I have also attempted to call him, but "he wasn't available". In fact, Lee Furlong has never answered any questions from me [a fairly substantial shareholder] during the past year. Regrettably, that _should have been the only clue I needed to bail and save myself. Alas . . . . Amazing as it might seem, after all these 'clues', I continued to have 'faith' in the validity of Black Rock. In retrospect, one must [should!] fall back on the 'basics' [values] and rely on them. I failed to do this most simple assignment. Interestingly, IPM management claimed, at the AGM, that 95% of the shareholders voted for the amendments [and all]. It blew my mind. It also meant that the funds _also had no idea of what they were voting for and hadn't even bothered to read the proposed amendments, themselves, else they _never would have voted for them. So much for believing in the 'expertise' and 'carefulness' of funds. Truly, I felt I was playing out a scene from Catch-22, standing beside Alan Arkin in a most bizarre episode. If you wish to be further amused I suggest that you match up the educational claims from Lee Furlong's circulated resume against the details printed in IPM's 10K report. [Not on EDGAR; must be requested from IPM] A keen eye will discern the major shift in emphasis and detail, leading one to realize that s/he is dealing with a man who's basic 'honesty' is to be questioned. I must confess that I had an advantage [in the education research] over most members of both S-10 and S.I. In scanning Lee's resume I saw that he said that he had done "graduate work at Colorado State University in 1960 and 1961". Having received my own degree from CSU in 1960, and still having my yearbook from that year, I took the liberty of going through it to see just exactly what kinds of things Furlong was involved in, that long era ago. The resulting 'blank' was what triggered me off to do my own extended research [what Karl called "sophomoric"] in that area. "Sophomoric", or sagacious, my findings turned out to be correct. However, I must confess, had not Furlong listed CSU as a prior school I would never have been triggered off into doing further research. After all, only a fool would lie about his educational status - it is so easy to verify . . . . Rod [Hollywood Beach, Ca.]