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: Moot who wrote (7282)	3/21/1998 5:27:00 PM
From: Carl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

Moot, I am in agreement with you regarding the sale of shares by insiders. In addition, I don't consider the number of shares sold last month by Ross and Oppenheimer insignificant. Between them, they sold over $550,000 worth of shares as the stock ran to $11+. Maybe I'm naive, but that's not exactly pocket change.

To: Moot who wrote (7282)	3/21/1998 8:12:00 PM
From: Gutman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10836

Moot, very relevant post. I might also point out that the options exercised by Oppenheimer and Ross in February at CDN$2.13 had an expiration date of December 15, 2006. There was no time pressure to sell the underlying shares, which they did on the same date the options were exercised. Rather, they took advantage of the market price (over CDN$11) to sell. Yes, I know, they had pressing personal expenses (the roof was leaking, college tuition for the kids, etc.) but it still does not look good. Question to all: if you knew that Oppenheimer and Ross were selling on Feb 13, mightn't you have done the same?

To: Moot who wrote (7282)	3/21/1998 10:47:00 PM
From: Libertarian22	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

Moot---Re legal arguments, the stock price etc. I appreciate your pursuit of the facts. Let me give you my view of this. . I am a CPA and an attorney. I practice as a CPA doing litigation support. That means I testify a lot in court cases as to the value of businesses, hidden assets, fraud etc. I have testified over 200 times and have been involved in many more cases that have been settled etc. I have played around with mining stocks for years. It fits my occupation and is fun. I heard about KRY early on and chose to ignore it. I do not like to "bet" on legal outcomes as courts are notoriously fickle and slow. Most cases are settled to avoid this problem. Late last year I decided to review the situation. This was after a number of people kept raising the issue. Besides it sounded like fun. Admittedly I have not made it a crusade nor have I retained all the facts. I have talked to a number of people about it--most recently at the PDAC. I tried to view the case as if I were going to take it on a contingency with the option I could pick either side. I was quite impressed the the KRY position. It comes down to the supreme court decision. Recently I have been just as unimpressed with Asensio and related short arguments. It does not come to my standards of a serious investigation. It reminds me of an attorney in court who says he is going to prove something but never does. However if he keeps repeating he proved it maybe someone will believe it. This is a common tactic when you do not have a case. Sometimes it does work. Recent tactics follow this except it is being tried in the market. Also it appears the attempts at this are becoming more frantic and desperate. At this point it is humorous and predictable.The latest is the lack of gold. I think PDG should give it to KRY and we can all go home. The next thing will be a sex scandal? However these tactics can work most often on a temporary basis. The press manipulation has been masterful. The difference today is that the internet can now more quickly respond to misinformation than the "good old days" when some people could gain an informational advantage and make money accordingly. That is what is happening here and it is fun to watch the interplay. Anyhow happy investing.

To: Moot who wrote (7282)	3/22/1998 6:06:00 PM
From: tanoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

Hello Moot; I must agree with the implications that can be applied to insider selling, it is something I do happen to follow. And yes, when one is looking at this and seeing the number of insider sales especially the timing of these sales, it could easily lead someone to carry much doubt and suspicions?? Unfortunatley I cannot say as to why the sales took place at that time other than this, "the reasons for the sales will be forthcoming", sounds very lame duck at the moment in light of what all has occurred over the past week, but it is the best I can offer at this moment. No one ever said this play was going to be a cake walk, all have had many opportunities, and will continue to do so for some time to come? This is far from over from both sides of this?? I will say that I believe that this thread has become better with the number of submissions, and many more are offerring some "real" thoughts to the whole process. With regards,Frank

To: Moot who wrote (7282)	3/22/1998 7:45:00 PM
From: Deep Throat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10836

To Moot - Insider trading insignificant? I read your previous messages with interest as they displayed a fine logical mind asking valid questions. However, I cannot abstain from wondering what part of logic did you employ in the paragraph (post 7282) in which you question the integrity of Crystallex's board of Directors? By giving the example of Eagleson do you expect that one would apply this unnamed logical reasoning to question the integrity of a group of wealthy, influential people (Crystallex's board)??? Or maybe, it's just a case of errare humanum est?