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 : Global Platinum & Gold (GPGI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ed Fishbaine who wrote (7801)	10/6/1998 3:15:00 PM
From: Anthony Zack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14226

Ed, "I doubt that a specialized engineering resource, as you put it, is needed. The recovery process is not going to be as complicated as Richard and Zeev have apparently convinced you that it will be." The company has indicated that the recovery process is sufficiently complicated so as to cause quality issues with the product being shipped to Sabin when the production process is not followed. Production engineering could be one man, but must remain onsite where the production problems will arise. I presume that Mike and Russell have other duties which will prevent them from fulfilling the obligations of a fulltime production engineer. It seems to me that if you have Russell serving in the development engineering role, and Mike not onsite fulltime, then someone else needs to take ownership of verifying product quality. If Russell does both production and development work, then each will suffer from time constraints. The production engineer would also be responsible for the implementation of process improvements that come from Russell's development lab. If we are going to grow this puppy, then lets grow this puppy the right way!! What happens when we go to 100, 200, 400 tons-per-day?? Will we need the services of a fulltime production engineer then? And if then...then why not now...or soon?? Tony

To: Ed Fishbaine who wrote (7801)	10/6/1998 9:17:00 PM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14226

<<What I mean by limited transparency is that the company does not issue clarifying statements to shareholders about what is happening. There is severe deficiency in accurate communication with shareholders and along with the problems there is probably positive news. They do not know how to tell the story and this has IMO a lot to do with the share price erosion.>> Ed: The company certainly was more successful in raising its stock price under the previous PR arrangement. However, I would not blame the adequacy of their current PR for the share price erosion. I would blame the share price erosion on the failure of the company to live up to any of its many cries of "Wolf" over the last several years. You can only cry wolf a certain number of times before the cry goes unheard. You need only go to the web site to see the promises of imminent production as early as 1995. And at that time, the promise of imminent production involved 8 opt of goodies. They are still promising imminent production, but now the promise involves <1opt, and even that number seems optimistic given the latest production failure. So I don't see the current share price erosion as a PR failure. I see it as a creibility failure.