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 Oak-RYO -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tom shelby who wrote (1164)	8/6/1998 11:58:00 AM
From: Michael Bidder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1706

Tom How do you get a net income of $2 + million? This was "voodo accounting". Royal did not pay her short term debts in this period. I am not an accountant but I do know that if you push forward losses then you have to pay the piper in a future accounting period. Royal Oak by her own admission is losing money at Kemess. If this is not so let the company correct this. Bottom line is no one trust Royal Oaks statements anymore. RYO's credibility is gone. Royal Oak has repeatedly blown sunshine at its investors to the point of misinformation and the investors got screwed! Only Kemess remains as the companies hope. This operation should have never been built. You just can't put machinery anywhere and call it a mine! The cover of Pegasus's 1996 annual report is very impressive. This annual report sold millions of shares to the naive. These are the people that belive that big is real. Well the Titanic sunk on her Maiden voyage. Mistakes are made. No one is pointing the finger, except at the B.C. government, all I expect is Royal Oak to come clean and tell the share holders the risks. What are the risks? What is the shareholders equity? Michael Bidder

To: tom shelby who wrote (1164)	8/6/1998 12:13:00 PM
From: Michael Bidder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1706

In light of the statement, "sustained losses are always terminal" let us review Mr. Shelby's response: <<<it does NOT apply to Royal Oak. For the three month period ending March 31, 1998 Royal Oak reported operating income of $3,183,000 and net income of $2,260,000.>>> Does not apply? Operating income? quote.yahoo.com This is the common sense approach. Its the bigger picture not some freak quarter based on aggressive accounting. Bear in mind when Royal Oak achieved this awesome performance gold was well above $300 USD. Now things might be different with gold below $300. Michael Bidder

To: tom shelby who wrote (1164)	8/12/1998 8:26:00 PM
From: Michael Bidder	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1706

KEMESS DECEPTION Tom whether you are buying a T.V. in a parking lot that turns out to be a a box with a brick in it or a $500 million dollar gold mine that has no gold the principle is the same, deception. Tom what's the difference between Bre-X and Kemess? The only difference is that with Kemess you have "plausable deniability". PLAUSABLE DENIABILITY: Management can hide behind engineers. Engineers can hide behind the uncertainties of an inexact science. Everyone can hide behind the drop in commodities. Wake up guys. Agree with me already. MB..............waiting for Q2