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 : JAB International (JABI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DDS-OMS who wrote (3447)	4/11/1998 9:39:00 PM
From: Ryan Weisman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4571

A great post for those still willing to engage in wishful thinking; I personally waver from doom and gloom to the wishful thinking arena... Anyway, since you have heard a lot of my "rotting fish" thoughts, and there are plenty of them around anyway, I'll give my BEST CASE SCENARIO: Sterling withheld payment on March payment, and during this time Jim engaged in talks with other parties who were interested in the story here. So Daniels steps in late in the month, and forks over March and April at the same time. Meanwhile, Jim had a nice deal from these other parties, was looking at a sizeable strike from the current mines, was hearing good reports from the currently closed mines, and decided to dually ramp up production on the current mine and open up the other mines. Maybe, just maybe, Jim has golden visions greater than ours, and wants to be competing with Newmont and Barricks sooner than later. he certainly has enough properties, and now $$$ flowing from several directions to deal with debt and produce. What can I tell you, I'm trying to keep my head up. As Bob Marley said, time will tell, RYAN

To: DDS-OMS who wrote (3447)	4/13/1998 12:31:00 AM
From: DDS-OMS	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4571

I wonder if I should waste the time it takes to write these long posts on SI--it doesn't seem anyone reads them--including Yahoo posters. I thought this post that I've responded to should have ended all the fury and uproar about this Reg S. It is simply a placement of 4.5 MM shares at 30 cents a share to raise $1.5MM It bears NO resemblence to the Reg S's that are floorless, convertible enticements to drive the price as low as possible. Reg S was started by the SEC in 1934--there was a depression then--to give small companies some way to raise funds cheaply--no banks were lending--there was no cash. This let small companies tap overseas sources for funds. The shares did not have to be registered, could be done quickly--the cost of obtaining the funds was very low--and probably saved many small companies. The purchasers of the Reg S shares had some risk--if the share price declined below their discounted purchase price, they lost money same as any investor. Then a few years ago, some sharp operators hit on the idea of convertible debentures, convertible at a percentage discount to current price--and a guaranteed profit. This is when Reg S got a deservedly bad name--potential unlimited dilution that really hurt the issuing company--or rather it's unsuspecting shareholders. This Reg S was placed with the same INVESTORS as the last Reg S 2 years ago. They still hold the majority of those shares from 1996, and there is no reason to expect they will dump these on May 4th. Sterling is NOT a participant in this placement. Posters are screaming about the cheap shares they are getting--you have to realize that when this 30 cent price was being negotiated, BCMD was selling for 43-46 cents a share--look at the price 1 week before the first tranch was effective. Chapin is not a fool--he got the best price he could at the time. In last years PP, I bought 500K shares at 10 cents when the price was 3/8 and another 500K when the price was 47 cents---so this placement cost the buyers three times as much per share with the stock selling at about the same level--I think Chapin did damn good! Over a year's period, Sterling will put in $3.8MM--and BCMD's cost of operation at current levels is $4.2MM per year. To expand operations, BCMD needs money other than what it is receiving from Sterling. Sterling, under current agreement, will get 49% of all future profits (after all $15MM is paid in) ON ALL PROPERTIES THAT THEIR MONEY IS SPENT ON IN DEVELOPMENT. If BCMD spends funds from sources other than Sterling in development, Sterling gets no part of that mine's output.. This $1.5MM allows BCMD to start developing mines NOWother than lower Brush Creek--specifically Lowry. BTW, by the end of summer, Sterling will have given BCMD $600,000 under the 19% contract. BCMD has the option of converting that $600,000 into equity and ending the 19% contract--and cancelling the 6MM 25 cent warrants. If development is rapid enough to start cash flow from operations enough to fund operations and further development, BCMD can opt out of the 19% contract and give up only 30% of profits in 3 years vs. 49%. It's only an option, but one I'd like to see BCMD be able to take advantage of. My pappy used to tell me--look further than the end of your nose--good advice here. I'm not going to tell anyone not to sell or to buy here--do according to what your own understanding of the situation is. Just don't let the cockroaches currently posting stampede anyone through fear and misinformation to act to your detriment and to their benefit. Information as to what these funds will be used for is forthcoming from BCMD--but I'm not sure if it will be tomorrow as people on Yahoo are saying. G'dnite, Gary