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: BillyZoom who wrote (31383)	4/2/1998 6:47:00 PM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 35569

All right I get it. The $628,000 in Note 12 plus the $109,000 in Note 12 equals $737,000, which is apparently the equivalent to the $738,000 referred to in the salary table. $1,000 difference is probably close enough for accountants. Now I feel embarassed for making an issue out of Furlong's compensation. After all, it was only $217,000 plus $42,000, plus options, plus a salary from MG Gold paid for by IPM shareholders, plus a salary at Namibian? paid for by IPM shareholders. Now it seems entirely reasonable to me---If IPM were Barrick Gold---maybe. But for a company with a $2 million working capital deficit that lost a ton of money for its (long) shareholders, it is outrageous.