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 : Crystallex (KRY) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mama Bear who wrote (6114)	3/5/1998 12:17:00 AM
From: Bill Jackson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

Asensio is safe with SOLV as they had no basis to cover their values. However KRY does in fact have a strong basis to reach a value of $25. Decisions by the courts already released are strogly in favor of KRY, and I feel that KRY will prevail. I suspect Asensio knows this and is tryong a multi pronged attack. This will fail as KRY will win. It is not another Osicom, ready to fall. I am not long or short in KRY, I have no interest in the stock at all, and so I am not prey to any standard reactions. As they say results are what counts, so let us wait and see what happens. Bill

To: Mama Bear who wrote (6114)	3/5/1998 12:49:00 AM
From: Greg Ford	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10836

There certainly seems to be a wide range of opinion on the "analysis" by Asensio. Clearly, this individual has been successful in shorting companies in a number of instances as evidenced by the case studies on his web site. That aside I am sure he has also been wrong in a number of instances, although he does not present that side of the story. The question to be assessed is the credibility of KRY vs the credibility of Asensio. KRY IMHO have made a number of statements which cause me concern as to whether their"legal case" will be settled in their favour. 1. The resignation of Ruiz has not been explained. In fact he is still listed as a management member on their website. 2. KRY has no credibility as an operator. Although they have a small mine they have not been involved in the construction of a project like LC. They do not have the financial resources to undertake such a project. They have not given any detailed indication of how a mine would be financed. KRY has suggested a smaller plant and a longer mine life. The economics don't make sense on an DCF basis based on PDG reserve and resource numbers. 3. Rumors of a takeover. Let's see there was BHP, ABX, Freeport and I am sure others. None have been substantiated. Where is the support for these claims. 4. Carson. Who is he? Why such an unbiased interest in KRY? What financial interest does he have in KRY, if any. How about Bishop and Grandich? 5. Credibility of Mael. If Mael owned LC why sell it to KRY for ?. Why not approach PDG or go it alone. 6. Gold rights have been awarded to PDG due to statute of limitations - no indication that this will change. That is what the appeal is over - to see if KRY can challenge the ruling. 7. Investment in Ven. - what advantage does KRY bring to the table. Little or no expertise; no ability to raise capital; cannot create level of employment in short time period which CVG and PDG can; lack of depth in management team. Venezuela is interested in attracting capital to develop its natural resources. Will the majors follow if tenure is not secure. 8. Rumors. Let's see Willson has resigned - NOT; Willson and Oppenhimer are friends - NOT; PDG making takeover bid - NOT etc. I don't know much about Asensio other than he is in the business of shorting. His risk is the same every time he enters in to this type of transaction. Make sure the facts, as he sees them, are plausible and can be supported. Has he been sued successfully to date? What happened with Diana and Solv-ex? Why would he risk issuing such a specific and pointed report? Has he done his due diligence? Food for thought. I think we will see $3.00US before we see $8.00US. FWIW Greg