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 : Big Valley Resources (BV-ASE) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scott Cameron who wrote (136)	11/27/1998 2:42:00 AM
From: R Kenyon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 231

I am not sure either how the deal got screwed up, but something just does not add up. Here are some observations: Fundamentally I see the ASE as being the culprit. It is totally unbelievable to me that the ASE will approve money for drilling in the swamps of Outer Mongolia with an incredibly low probability of success while doing their best to stop what appears to be a winner. Patents had been issued and the process demonstrated in the plant in Finland. My understanding is that to get a patent approved in Finland it has to be demonstrated to work. Why didn't the ASE let the shareholders vote on this? Everybody wanted it. Many shareholders, including myself, called the ASE when things appeared to be going wrong. Explanations from the exchange were inconsistent and according to BV blatantly incorrect in many cases. There were many reports of items not being received, but BV claim they have a record of sending them. I was told by the ASE that they had not insisted upon a North American pilot plant but clearly others were told the opposite. Big Valley's exposure on this deal was relatively low. The mining side was totally protected and the vast majority of the repayment would have been out of profits. The financiers were taking the risk, that is why they were getting 25% of the deal. Why couldn't the ASE see this? What bothers me the most is that I do not understand why the ASE did this, gross incompetence appears to be the only answer. I cannot see anyone gaining from the failure of this deal. It should be noticed that the financiers are proceeding with the deal and presumably getting a bigger share of the venture. Clearly the ASE did not act in the best interest of the shareholders. Regards, RK

To: Scott Cameron who wrote (136)	11/27/1998 12:54:00 PM
From: gekko	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 231

Pat, We all are pissed at the ASE and their bureaucratic bullshit. Was the deal going to be profitable for share holders, I think so that is why I invested. But if you think the Big Valley management is a bunch of scholars you must have selective vision. Twice this stock has been halted, and twice the outcome has been failure! Do you not think before they halted this stock they should have crossed a few t's and dotted a couple I's. Before I would have halted BV I would have maybe done a little homework to see what had to be done to get the deal through. Over 3 months BV was halted while an infinite bunch of monkey's in BV's office in their infinite wisdom sat around scratching their heads.