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: Sid Turtlman who wrote (5995)	9/2/1998 11:27:00 PM
From: mqmsi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6735

Sid, Thanks for your answer to my posting. I agree with you when you say "the people buying and selling the overpriced stock are unaware of the existence and merits of the underpriced one." Certainly this can happen, as you have pointed out in another stock that you follow. However, doesn't this pretty much rule out the SEC case against Rendall and Campbell when in June 1997, CPMNY traded at a price that would be equivalent to about $50 for Solv-Ex? This is why I believe that something else is behind the SEC investigation of Rendall and Campbell. If Solv-Ex was so overpriced, why didn't the SEC go after CPMNY when it was even more overpriced. Also, why was the SEC so insistent using Solv-Ex's competitors to get their opinion of the Solv-Ex technology? My opinion, is that the SEC couldn't lose either way. If the judge granted them the right to let Solv-Ex's competitors evaluate the technology, the competitors would most likely have said that it didn't work. But if the judge didn't grant the competitors the right to evaluate the technology, then the SEC could say that they don't have enough information to make an informed decision and the case remains in doubt. But if the SEC used an independent engineering firm and they validated Solv-Ex's technology, then heads would roll at the SEC. The above is only my opinion, but I do think it's a possible explanation. Regards, Mark