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 : Solv Ex (SOLVD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TheDuke who wrote (5791)	7/14/1998 11:24:00 PM
From: WTMHouston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6735

An interesting article.......and an interesting quote.... <<"In the final analysis, the measure of a company is how it performs. Our objective is to perform. Ultimately, if you don't perform, you disappear.">> I guess that 18 years doesn't yet qualify as "eventually" and isn't long enough for a "final analysis." Also interesting is the "somewhat" appearing before the "negative" regarding the SEC. Kind of makes me tend to think that the SEC will say something like, "There have been problems but there aren't anymore since the plant and leases are gone." Just guessing, but it seems like we will all know soon enough. I would be surprised to see anything new or different than what was in the material JJB posted and I expect far less since part of the hearing transcript seemed to suggest that some of the "allegations" in the memo had already been answered satisfactorily. I hope for the longs sake that the "memos of understanding" don't go the same way as some of the pre bankruptcy promises that there were partners and investors that were ready to plop down cash because they were so impressed with the process in Canada......I seem to recall a conference call in 1997 where JR made a point of repeatedly stressing that these people existed and would be available to make sure that things didn't go down the tubes. Unless I misread the material, I got the distinct impression that Solv was suggesting that only the resolution of the bankruptcy case was standing in the way of converting the memos to contracts and then income. I find this peculiar since they seemed to also say that once they got out of bankruptcy they needed to demonstrate commercial viability......The most obvious question is, if commercial viability has yet to be demonstrated, is there any legitimate basis on which to imply that only the bankruptcy case stands in the way of income producing contracts? At the risk of sounding cynical, and I know it will sound that way, this sure sounds a lot like the same kind of rhetoric we've heard before. For those of you that are long, I hope that in the final analysis it eventually isn't and that it doesn't take another 18 years to find out. Just my thoughts..... Troy