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: Eva who wrote (28977)	12/5/1997 2:53:00 PM
From: Donald Watson, Jr.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Eva, glad Eli called you back. I would have been caught off guard if he had called me back today too. If Eli does watch this thread please call Karl Zetmeir, Im sure he has his questions on 3x5 cards and is ready to ask the questions. Glad to see the financing, I noticed it also said it was working on the Nov 14. financing also. Maybe that will get us say another 5 mill. Your Friend, Don Watson

To: Eva who wrote (28977)	12/5/1997 3:21:00 PM
From: Donald Watson, Jr.	Respond to of 35569

Has anyone else spoken with Eli or Management today ? EOM

To: Eva who wrote (28977)	12/6/1997 5:22:00 PM
From: Bijan Khazri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Eva ( getting militant) Eva, Please realize that the only militancy that will serve any purpose here is on behalf of your portfolio. There are some very fundamental problems with IPM's behavior that serve to exacerbate their recent admission of technical failure. 1) The timeliness and content of press releases. The company has released positive "assumptions" as they were available. Technical difficulties were not released, creating a high degree of expectation in the market. When the releases contained negative material, these were worded in such cryptic terms that induced everyone to come to their own interpretation of facts. The latest release is just an example. The only way that any clarification is shed upon these releases is through conversations with company officials. Institutions may have such access, but the majority of individual holders do not or will not attempt to obtain the clarifications, and vote by selling their stock, thus affecting the rest of us. We just saw how devastating this can be. 2) Use of company funds. The rate of fund depletion from the company coffers is not commesurate with the results obtained. The ancillary expenditures are borderline illegal. There are many other points that could be added, but these are the main topics. I suggest that the institutions are not immune from the foregoing shortcomings, and could support a shareholder oversight group to monitor the day to day operations at IPM. I propose that an influential group of shareholders be formed who would elect representatives; the group would contact the institutions and sound their willingness to sustain the principles stated herein. If the final group represents a substantial number of shares, then appropriate action can be taken to defend our interest in IPM. On the positive side, one should understand that the fire assay proves only the free gold in the BRX property, and not any amount of gold that may be recoverable through an appropriate leaching process. The upside to this stock is still there, if one is willing to bet that there will be a viable recovery process developed. Platinum, other PGMs and silver are a bonus. I personally move to nominate Furry to represent us in this matter. If he accepts, we should discuss an appropriate fee for his services (with a cap, of course), and see where this endeavour takes us. It is not good to turn the other cheek. Bijan