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 : Starcore Resources Ltd. SOE.V -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Cat who wrote (144)	3/14/1999 8:32:00 PM
From: Greg Ehman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 578

Tom... I don't even pretend to know all the answers, and I don't know if I'm even right...but let's sit back and discuss this. You said... <This would be the first I ever heard that someone would be willing to pay more for a private placement , on moral grounds..where is the problem in doing a pp before assays are out (99% of the pp are that way!!!!!)? (unless of course they know the results of the assays, and in this case we are talking about flagrant insider trading)......this just does not add-up, how could this morality surfaced at the last minute?...after they already posted the closure of the p.p?> I think there are a couple of points here: 1)Let's speculate that the pp involved some members of the Board or those in similar positions. They were set to make the deal - the certified cheque was on the table. Suddenly these exceptional and very promising visual results come in. They had to announce the results or there was bound to be a leak. They decide to delay the pp until after the assays are in. IF they had done the deal, the immediate charge would have been insider trading. Tom - you, me and every other investor would be SCREAMING, swearing up and down that they knew something prior to the pp, or worse choose to go ahead with the pp after the visuals but PRIOR to waiting for assays. So, to eliminate ANY potential scandal they postpone the pp until after the assays are announced. That way, there is no scandal, there can be no complaints, and everything is above board. See any gaping holes yet?? Sure, like you said, they could have still done the pp, but would there have been complaints?? I think so. Will it cost more money?? I can almost guarantee it - but it will be WORTH IT!!! 2)The decision to delay the pp means one of two things. Either they are VERY concerned about potential scandals or they are VERY CONFIDENT in the results of the assays. I honestly think the discovery of such remarkable visuals through a wrench into everything. I think the Board knows, as you put it earlier, "they are sitting on the mother of all deposits" They are in a Catch 22 situation. They shouldn't do a pp after reporting those visuals and prior to the assays, but now are forced to bet the bank on the assays. You also said.... <Something not right here. The other think that looks suspicious is the delay in reporting the results, I though I read that 2 more weeks for results?...my understanding is that assays could be available in 72 hrs if required (in today's depressed market probably even faster)> The last news I heard is the results will be available this Friday. Now, sure it may be possible to do the assays in 72 hours, but let's be reasonable. Here's the timeline as I project it. They ship the core to a government facility where they are logged and split. (1-2 days) Each section is probably split again into various samples reflecting various depths. (1 day) The samples then go in for assays, using conventional AA or Fire Assay approaches. (2-3 dys)They come back high grade and further assays using a bottle-rolled cyanide method is used (1-2 days) To me that takes almost a full week or maybe longer so I think there timeline is appropriate. Tom, I'm as anxious as you are, but I really think Starcore did the right thing here. I hope this answered more questions than it raised. Good luck Greg

To: Tom Cat who wrote (144)	3/14/1999 9:36:00 PM
From: Elizabeth Andrews	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 578

I believe that Starcore has a 50% interest in this prospect and they joint ventured the other 50% to a company called Proam. According to the Proam news release they are proceeding with a financing also with Canacord. Why would this be? If the underwriter had a reason to cancel SOE's financing on negative grounds why are they proceeding with Proam? If SOE's board had material information (positive) that meant the stock would go higher, presumably Proam would know. If that's the case, why is Proam doing it cheaper than the implied information suggests?