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 : Bema(Bgo) and Arizona Star -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Harper who wrote (9679)	9/2/1998 10:19:00 AM
From: Perry	Respond to of 10482

All, beware Liz An.,she lurks on many gold threads including ELD. Negative and non-factual feedback is here speciality.

To: Tom Harper who wrote (9679)	9/2/1998 11:58:00 AM
From: Elizabeth Andrews	Respond to of 10482

Tom, you have to be mad or interested to finance ECM in this way. But consider this speculative explanation for the transactions. I'll bet that if you research the history of stock issuance by ECM you'll find an interested group perhaps connected to BGO in there with cheap stock. The market value of this was then enhanced by BGO's share purchases which gave ECM credibility and allowed the original purchasers to sell at a profit due to the promoted cap value. The potential damage to the BGO shareholders is that the money invested in ECM could have bought an interest in the property. That interest is not dilutable. If ECM has to be restructured and refinanced then BGO's interest could be diluted. It's not a matter of which business strategy you prefer. The interests of BGO shareholders appear to be better served by having an interest in the El Callao property not ECM. Same money better effect. But maybe, and here's the crazy part, the interests of some BGO shareholders were the same as the interests of some ECM shareholders. Comprende?