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 : Naxos Resources (NAXOF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (10138)	3/15/1998 8:11:00 AM
From: Richard Mazzarella	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Larry, <<(here come the flames)>> Not from me.<VBG> Mark addressed some of the reasons why the stock suffered, the change in assay values being the most obvious. People tend to ignore stock price as insight of what is happening in a company. Even the larger (COC?) numbers didn't rocket the stock. That was because the price was already in the stock near the highs, buy the rumor sell the news. Now there are even lower numbers. What does that mean for shareholder expectation? A failure in expectation, that brings a stock down. IMO the JJ issue (gone without replacement) just adds uncertainty to the equation. Experienced people read that as "trouble in river city". If they had announced the new person with a message to shareholders with all the flowers, the stock could have popped. Maybe even Jay Taylor would have recommend it? These lower numbers now add more uncertainty for efficient recovery. Even with all these problems, I believe the most unsettling aspect of recent events was the beforehand knowledge by others for the reported news. That is serious stuff that can get a stock in big trouble with exchanges. Did insiders tell "others" and did those "others" trade on that information. The stock price suggests yes. Does the "little guy" even have a chance? I asked Mark yesterday where he thought the stock price would go. Everybody wants to know that, but nobody wants to discuss it. Why is that? That demonstrates even more uncertainty on the part of shareholders. So where does a stock go with uncertainty? I leave the answer to others.

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (10138)	3/15/1998 9:40:00 AM
From: Bear Dolbair	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Naxos refuses to show anyone the Behre Dolbear report for a very good reason don't you think? The only place there is any excitement about Naxos is here on Silicon Investor. Go to any mining seminar and its a non topic. Naxos is well known in the industry and they can release "great" news until the cows come home. I assure you nobody will care except for naive gullible novice investors and the sharks who prey upon them.

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (10138)	3/15/1998 10:43:00 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Larry Brubaker: The COC issue you raise probably should be addressed. I was under the impression that Behre Dolbear delivered the COC to CMRI and while BD was acting as consultant they engaged CMRI to prepare the samples for assay. I understood the company saw no need to continue to pay BD's fee once the drilling was complete and once they became aware CMRI was processing the samples anyway. I think you ask a valid question and it ought to be addressed by someone at the company directly. JLA