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 Macklin who wrote (12443)	4/29/1998 6:42:00 PM
From: ShoppinTheNet	Respond to of 20681

Larry how do you know that?

To: Larry Macklin who wrote (12443)	4/29/1998 6:55:00 PM
From: sh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20681

Larry, I didn't want to get into this any further (SK has been on quite an impressive roll :) but I will because I completely disagree with your evaluation. The company is not priced where it should be but rather where the market is willing to accept it at this point. As others have pointed out, Naxos' situation is better than it has ever been with one exception. That exception is the uncertainty about the J/L process (which I will go into in a few seconds). Given the potential PM reserves involved here (as others have postulated based on then-current information, which has only been enhanced with the recent SFA results), the stock price is extremely undervalued. That does not mean anything other than the market is not fairly pricing Naxos. There could be numerous variables involved in that, Mark mentioned some of them in one post (I don't intend to go into those variables since they've often been discussed on this thread). Another person mentioned no one knows whether it is under or over-valued until the property is proven (or disproven) in the future. That is ridiculous. You look at all the current variables and place a present value on the property based on those variables. If the property later proves to be more or less valuable, that is only because other facts will have surfaced that affect the valuation. It does not mean something is improper with the current valuation based on current information. So, what is its present value based on the information we have? You'll need someone like Carlo or Tom F. to do the number crunching and figure it out from there. If Bre-X was valued at over $250 with an average of .07 opt au, then Naxos and its larger ore size should be valued at more than 3 bucks. If you don't believe that, you shouldn't be in the stock. I don't believe we have been given sufficient information on the status of the J/L process. I find it incredible to believe that the exceptional results we received were the result of a random sampling of what turned out to be some extremely unique parts of the property. If more tests have been run by Ledoux using the J/L process but they came in at a much lower level, I think that is material information that should be made public (and I'm not talking about bad results that were the product of technical problems in the testing). A better explanation has to be provided as to why testing by Ledoux per the J/L process has been put on hold or scrapped. SFA is great but it and the J/L process testing are not mutually exclusive. I'm sure we can have both types of testing done simultaneously (although the slow testing pace that continues with present management would even make me jittery about expanding the testing program -- that is in jest of course since we should be continuing with the J/L process given the prior substantial increase in the recovery rate of gold). I'll stop the booooring essay. Bottom line is the stock price is undervalued unless there is something wrong with the information we have been given to date. sh