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 : Royal International Venture RIL.V (was Labrador Int'l LAB) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Roger D who wrote (959)	7/9/1998 12:15:00 PM
From: Ed Pakstas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3380

Gentlemen... I have a feeling that tempers are flaring due to the fact that there is very little information coming out of the entire SVB and is thus reflecting not only the share values of the companies but accumulated investment loses... If the SVB play is a dud, no amount of whinning or takeover attempts is going to save our capital. The 'who's who' of experience is on this play and unfortunately for us as investors the lack of news is reflecting the current share values. One factor that one may want to consider is that the present share value of the stock is at or near the Company's lowest option price and in my books that evens the odds for the investor (0.15 is the lowest they can set options at)... I'm not saying that I support Larrabie and his crew nor the CSG... If anything this little shakeup may open existing managements eye's to the extent that they better shape up their personal spending habits or ship out, 'cause they are being closely watched... If this entire play has any substance to it, that substance will reflect in the share values of the entire SVB and not only the LAB. NO AMOUNT OF DISSIDENCE WILL CHANGE ANYTHING IF THERE IS NOTHING THERE TO BE FOUND All that will change is the individuals spending the investment capital... The final decision re: expenditures is the Insider's, not ours... ...ed

To: Roger D who wrote (959)	7/9/1998 12:59:00 PM
From: Winer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3380

Roger, assuming that all of the points you made here are correct, then the "concerned shareholders" group should provide iron clad legal documentation as to how, precisely, they would run the company, deal options, associate with Donner and Teck, etc.. If they are to be as upstanding as the hype here would suggest, then they should sign a manifesto indicating their exact intentions, in detail. This would insure that we would not witness a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" scenario. Think of this in terms of a political election. Election promises mean nothing. What remains is general averaging of performance. And in general, for the reasons that Ed has pointed out, performance is linked to exploration success. The plans for this year have been set, the budget has been allocated, and we are waiting for whatever results come from this exploration. The "concerned shareholders" should make an appearance here and share with all of us their proposed methodology for more efficient nickel exploration, because if they were to be elected that is what most shareholders would become immediately concerned with. Unsubstantiated management bashing is the easy part, and is not the criteria upon which any candidate ought to be elected.