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 : American International Petroleum Corp -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DRRISK who wrote (8559)	5/6/1998 12:25:00 PM
From: sand wedge	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11888

drrisk, you and george have similiar perspectives. could you provide an analysis of this post, pls Subject: Re: Andmoragin Date: Wed, May 6, 1998 08:52 EDT From: Andmoragin Message-id: <1998050612521200.IAA01243@ladder01.news.aol.com> Bouhafa " By the way, all analyst reports tend to be somewhat "promotional" if they support a buy recommendation. ...whether they come from Cohen or Smith Barney. Your statement that the report contained "little in the way of new information" is yet another example of dismissing something out of hand without offering any explanation. Besides were you expecting George Faris to divulge to Kieth Bossey material information that was not available to the general public." Certainly most buy recs are somewhat promotional. But then, my expectation is that buy recs provide support for their conclusions. If in fact Bossey has offered nothing more than that contained in the post from JGiord, then he has continued a practice from his firm that offers very high expectations for this stock with no support that would be typically offered by a "real" analyst. Thus, I consider his conclusions pure "promotion"; the fact that he offered a few negative comments allows you or I to agree that he is looking at negatives and has some "balance", but that does not balance out the lack of support for his promotional valuation thesis. How to support a valuation? Not to suggest that $.50 per barrel results in "astronomical" possibilities. Pure promotion, The real way is to show a cash flow or net profit per barrel scenario that supports a reserve value figure; --- don't pull one out of the air. I know of NO evidence to support this $.50 number in Russia or Kaz. Do you? Analysts have private meetings with company officers all the time; much information is discussed that is not released in press releases. Is this illegal --- no. So the answer is --- yes; I did expect more from an analyst report. Especially appropriate is info which supports expectations of valuation and/or future earnings. Bossey offered little. " If that's what you were expecting, I would check with the SEC to see what its opinion would be of such a practice.)" You seem to throw out the thre letters S-E-C regularly; it is N-O-I-S-E. There is nothing illegal about an analyst arranging a conference or private meeting with company officers. And there are many things that could have been added to Mr. Bossey's report if discussed with AIPN that would not have constituted any "insider info" violation. Don't pretend that you do not know that. "What evidence do you have that the Russian wells will not produce positive cash flow once the deal is signed and the wells are re-worked? If you have evidence that those wells will not produce cash flow, please communicate that evidence to Olivier before he signs the deal)" I have at my disposal much information that allows me to say that both the history-to-date of Western companies undertaking Russian revitalization projects and the expectations for profitable operations in that operational and political environment are very poor. Thus the real question for readers is ---- what evidence do you or Mr. Bossey have to suggest that AIPN will see any positive cash flow? Secondly, I suggest that any holder of AIPN stock knows better than to think they can believe what management says thus Mr. Olivier can do or say what he wants, it will not alter the Russian realities plus it won't change the likelihood that this company whose track record of profitless operation will succeed in Russia where numerous competent and well-financed western oil companies have not. "I'm not sure what the value of "proven and probable reserves" in Kaz have to do with Russia but it would have been appreciated if you had given a number that you think appropriate in valuing such reserves. If not .50/barrel then how much?)" I didn't suggest they did, I mentioned Kaz only because Mr. Bossey included Kaz in his "astronomical" sentence. Proved and probable reserves in Kaz don't command $.50 per barrel so where does this $.50 for potential come from? I suggest the value of AIPN's concession is approximately what they paid for it. Until maybe you can reveal another "offer" that is higher. "..... However, AIPC has received real offers from some of those companies that fall below what the company believes is acceptable. In that context, confidentiality agreements would have been mandatory in order to protect those offers from being shared with competitors) ...." Hmmmmm... let me understand this. Oil companies want AIPN to protect their unacceptable offers. Yet you tell us about them. Too bad those offering too little didn't get YOU to sign a confidentiality agreement to not reveal this fact to the public. So just what do you "think" you know about these offers. I suggest you tell the board. The fact remains that oil companies sign confidentiality agreements over the most trivial of joint discussions. The fact that they would be signed in this case is pure routine and meaningless --- don't continue to suggest otherwise. "You clearlyhave every right to post here but why you do so with such regularity is a mystery to me. Is this some sort of a public service that you feel needs to be provided?" N-O-I-S-E; I suggest that you can't deal with those who understand certain facts better than you and you always resort to this tactic to dismiss them. "Do your windows" better before you post unsupportable opinions. Bossey also does not "do windows" very well. Help him out. It would be a "public service" for all to minimize unsupported hyperbole. As for me; I now own AIPN stock "again" at a fraction of what I sold it for previously. Does that qualify me to post on "your" board??? I believe it is overvalued at this price. I bought it only because I believe hype and manipulative actions will provide me an opportunity to sell at a profit. Does that disqualify me from posting here? Do I have to believe your opinions to post here. Just what are the rules? George

To: DRRISK who wrote (8559)	5/9/1998 7:59:00 AM
From: t mcwilliams	Respond to of 11888

Dr. I agree with you, this has been a great stock to trade, and I myself have done so on numerous occasions. My present position I intend to keep. In the past, the stock price was volatile due to rumors and speculation, as are many other stocks, but the recent happenings surrounding this stock have piqued my interest, and I intend to wait and watch. Fortunately, my buy price this time around permits me to do so. JMHO. Tim