Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Completely agree PAAS is a blue chip silver play if one has a 12 to 24 month time horizon
Hecla just looks better and better though I think it is a 12 to 24 month investment for best returns.
Crosby and Ryan have been involved in many companies, some worked, some didnt. But they certainly know how the junior exploration business is run and hopefully when the market turns Shoshone will turn with it. Not many companies left in north Idaho compared to even 10 years ago let alone the old Spokane exchange days.
I agree we should be factual and when one claims something isnt at least identify what is behind the assertion. The facts on this company are clear.
I do believe it is headed to yet aother reverse split based on recent share issuances, the outstanding convertible notes, and pattern of how the company is managed. Issuing 16 million shares to himelf in one fell swoop doesnt present a CFO concerned about the share price IMHO.
Interesting form 4. there is an s8 on file, but CFO issues over $290,000 in stock to himself but states restricted for a year ( even though as reporting company usual hold 6 months).The IRS does not accept a discount for restricted stock absent a formal valuation of the "fair market value", and since this is for compensation company gets hit for payroll taxes.
So company will have to issue a 1099 in 2013 for stock CFO supposedly cant sell until 2014.
BUT by filing the registration statement, if declared effective,one assumes that CFO will sell shares in 2013 as much as possible to pay his own taxes- and company which is short on cash, will need to pay payroll taxes.
On July 25 the 13G implies there were outstanding as of that date 1.5 million shares.
On August 9 registration statement filed on shares from stock compensation plan, for 20 million shares.
August 6 form 4 filed for CFO 16.2 million shares,10.5 million shares for CFO.
The race to 500 million shares outstanding is underway !!!
1manband has presented a generally accurate picture of the long term nature of re-opening a mine in the current regulatory climate. The issue that a property owner "fees" this is not the case doesnt negate his observation which is backed up by trends dating back to the 90's and getting worse yearly for the industry.
Yes Hecla is operating in Colorado,and Hecla has some of the best narrow-vein underground miners in North America, and they have the financial resources. If they cant get their mine up in 2 years, why would anyone think CGFI could ? If someone has a logical and probable scenario for this happening I am sure everyone on this board would like to hear about.
As an investor/speculator, there is no speculation here about short term production potential. since I believe they are digging themselves a regulatory hole, the next reverse which they will do may be the last.
Look forward to the pictures, certainly of interest.
The mining business is inherently risky and long term just the nature of the business. Companies can pour millions into exploration,and then like tthe 90's bottom falls out and can take years before a mine then economic again. Junior companies by their nature speculative betting on market demand ,commodity prices, and exploration success. So no reason to not speculate based on these factors as long as one is aware, and company has reasonable management-1mandband has shown precisely by company's own releases they are just asking for trouble.
This is what so annoying about this company, their projection of processing ore by September this year, now pushed back 2 years, was just either incompetence or pure hype. Yet people with little knowledge of mining or speculating in such stocks, strongly argue that company could produce this year- and incredible explanations of how they could do so for little money ! Like everyone else my interest came about because they had a mill- but the management is simple not credible.Rice as member of SME should know better.
I do not know if SEC will bother much with these fellows, but I know unequivocally SEC engineering office would throw the book at them if their press releases come to their attention. I cant think of very few companies that would dare in this day and age put out such press releases as a reporting company.
The problem about making even a ball park forecast with a mine re-opening is (a) the wild card of permitting (b) one needs sufficient information which simply we dont have (c) certain steps need to be followed along the path to a production decision.
In this case the company is at pre early stage status as a "exploration" company if one could call it that. They have a mill which cannot be operated yet, they have some sort of option on mines, and based on old information they have made some estimates of resources.
-A few months is out of the question, no one with any experience investing in pre-production plays or actual mining experience would hold this view.
-Two years is also unlikely for all the reasons posted.
- 10 years ? this wouldnt be out of line as a forecast according to what is happening in the industry.
Two things stand out : first, a lot more drilling and underground evaluation is required, normally with this situation I would expect two work seasons minimum to even consider a production decision- and that is assuming everything goes like clockwork. Even then funding needs to be raised which they themselves have quoted at $11 million. second, does the financial position of the company show promise that funding can be raised within the next 6 months for a serious drilling and underground work program.I do not believe they will even start a serious program in the next 6 let alone 12 months.
It seems unlikely under current management CGFIwill ever produce from their ownmines within the next 5 years in my opinion.
Someone posted a mine in this area can be back in producton in a few months I listed a few reasons why I thought this was not possible for this company ,ie. to go into commercial production in a few months. based on your experience what is your opinion ?
I completely agree the numbers show quite clearly there will be another reverse split within the next 12 months if not earlier.
I do believe that everyone benefits from calm analysis of the situation and outlandish claims of this company producing in a few months should be addressed to save unsuspecting invetors, and also advance everyone's knowledge of the situation Isnt that supposed to be the purpose of this board ?
What does this have to do with BTDG ? Can anyone show how this would effect the cash flow or sales of BTDG ? Can anyone show precisely what is the effect of any discussions with RHN on BTDG shareholders ?
I never quite understand what your comments refer to specifically. I do not short stocks or even know how a retail invesor can short a stock trading under $.10. The only link provided on this board is to a company that consistently told me one cant short CGFI stock as a retail trader.Every market maker i have spoken too just laugh at idea a retail trader can short this stock. It is the company that has created this situation not people posting on this board.
There is no way these mines are going into production in months- and the company's fact sheet itself makes that very clear.
Just take a piece of paper and make a simple checklist of all the things that would have to happen (assuming of course the improbable assumption they can raise $11 million)for that to occur.
1. Access- rehabilitation of tunnels, ground control issues, and such mines need a secondary escapeway. Rehabilitating these sorts of tunnels require experienced personnel, and restoring services underground is a time-consuming process. Until you go underground one doesnt know status of cave-ins or current ground control issues.
2. Supplies and Personnel-Find experienced narrow-vein underground miners doesnt happen at a drop of a hat, supplies and material need to be ordered.If they run on track, what gauge and is such track readily available, if trackless, LHD can take months to get delivery.For example operating a jack-leg drill,an inexperienced operator may do 75 feet, and an experienced one 250 feet, quite a difference.
3. Permitting- Every mine operation has delays. This company hasnt even finished permitting the mill, what on earth would make anyone think that a former mine could be ready for inspections and any permits in a few months ? The company itself mentions it is possible they need a NPDES permit- The EPA can take years to grant such a permit.
4. Reserves- The company has no reserves.It has estimated resources based on old data. Thus they require a lot of drilling to reach a production decision his requires mobilizing drilling companies, and they a lot of assays, and metalurgical testing etc. This will not happen in a few months. Say they need to do 15,000 to 30,000 feet of drilling- the time to do this + get the assays sent and results received + analysis of these assays plotted againt where they were taken from etc : all this takes time- and usually results in follow up drilling to further delineate potential orebodies.
An artisanal hobby mine maybe can extract some ore after a few months, but these properties are years ot months away from production even if they had $11 million tomorrow.
Even the company doesnt claim they can go into production in months. Their estimate of a further 2 years is unrealistic IMHO.Their own track record of meeting projectiosn doesnt give a lot of confidence.
1manband has posted over and over logical support for his comments about the misleading and incorrect disclosures made by this company concerning NI 43-101 and SEC guide 7. A quick glance at any NI43-101 report accepted for filing in Canada, or how companies disclose under SEC Guide 7, will show this company is not following normal and correct industry practice.
Promoting metal values in the ground as they do in their press releases is frowned upon by every regulatory body.
This should concern all shareholders.
1. Regulatory Issues- Without any doubt the day someone from SEC engineering ofice reviews their filings they will be forced to issue retractons and re-statements. Costly, time consuming, and potentially damaging to public perception of the stock.
2. Financing issues- Company through the paid research report and public filings has indicated they need $3 million to rehabilitate the mill, and $11 million to achieve their business plan. I know of no serious private placemet money in this difficult financing environment that looking at their press releases this year + how company is managed, that would even remotely consider putting up this sort of money.
3. Management Ability and Experience- The company's track record of meeting their own projections is abysmal.The press releases have simply not been effective in the market considering the continual price decline this past two years. Can anyone say their marketing plan is successful in raising funds for company and building market credibility ? Andif not successful why do they folow the same unsuccessful path ? The only logical reason is (a) they are imcompetent (b) dont care becasue they make their own money somehow doing all this.
I realize everone can have different opinions about subjective matters,but this is pretty clear and straightforward IMHO.
bismark I think a fair distance. the chester ground i guess if you try to correlate the maps in the NI43-101 report you could identify which falls within Chester ground, and which Chester may claim APEX rights. You would probably have quite a chore going through block by block of reserves to establish which is on Chester ground and which isnt.
Ball park if Chester 50 million ounce resource,and contains key deep targets, then question how much of current legacy reserves on Chester ground-I would be surprised if less than 5 million ounces.
Revised projections on fact sheet-so much for 2013 production.
First ore to be processed in mill pushed back to July 2014, and first "production" September 2015.Without permit, or funds to rehabilitate mill or to conduct serious exploration to establish reserves, I doubt that even this new timetable is probable.
Who knows, maybe they could update the fact sheet to show next projected reverse split ?
Averaging down would make sense if there were probable or even possible indicators for a potential gain.Problem is no one can provide such an indication as far as I can see.
1. The existence of $500,000 + in convertibles, plus if company is even to keep the lights on, another $400,000 over 12 months, means a steadily increasing number of shares outstanding and dropping share price, until another reverse happens.
2. There is no indication of the availability of $3 million for the mill, especially as there are no reserves identified and owned that could supply the mill steadily.
3 There is a track record last few years of (a) company not meeting their own projections (b)unable to create sufficient demand in the market to outweigh the negative effects of how many shares they continue to issue for notes, services and properties.
4. The company has shown a cavalier disregard for proper disclosures , and a marketing strategy that clearly hasnt worked.There is no indication CFO recognizes this.Whether you agree or not proof is in the pudding, demand and volume not sufficient to turn situation around.
At $.02 $900,000 in convertibles ( if they can get new convertible debt steadily on this volume)mean an additional 45 million shares. However price will most likely go sub penny again, so we are looking at hundreds of millions of shares being issued within next 12 months if not sooner.
I do not see what is the cataylst for reversing this situation.
There is no play to average down here. For old shareholders they will never recover their investment. For new shareholders company is on the same path ,the price will trend down until the next reverse split.
The company reported $500,000 plus in convertibels. Based on recent trends it will need another $400,000 in convertibles just to stay alive the next 12 months. It has a judgement against it if I understand correctly is being appealed and they may lose that too.So $900,0000 in convertibles that will hit and no reason to suppose result wont be the same as before.
No one has provided any logical probable path to success for this company. If someone makes a question, the question or the poster attacked, as opposed to logical response- can anyone show a track record of success by this CFO with this company since he has been CFO ? There are no reserves to mill even if mill by some miracle unkown in the annals of recent junior mine finance was repaired and permitted after raising $3 million. There is no ore, so what path to success is there ?
Please explain what I am missing :
1.Mill has no permit and even if it did there are no established reserves on properties which in any case company doesnt own yet.
2.The company has indicated it needs $3 million to rehabilitate the mill for operation,and a total of $11 million tomeet its business plan. It has over $500,000 in convertibles already, and based on past experience needs $400,000 in cash to operate per year. It has also has a judgement against it if I recall for over $300,000. the only cash it seems able to bring in is through convertibles, and volume no where sufficient to bring in that sort of money.
3. Overly-promotional,misleading and untimely disclosures do not give confidence to any serious investor, and most likely will lead to re-statements and at a minimum a lot of expense dealing with regulators.CFO clearly hs no idea the hole he is digging the company into.
4.The DTC chill precludes many investors from touching this company in a private placement.
This represents a viable path ?
The company has brought in over $400,000 per year + issued millions of dollars worth of shares for services, properties and convertible notes. While we may not know the exact amount when shares sold, this apparently has been going on for years.I do not believe for one second management is working for free.It probably costs a "normal" company this size around $100,000 a year to stay reporting, so $300,000 for everything else but the shares have value. They filed s8 statements so they could receive free-trading shares.
Management has consistently not met its own projections, so by their own criteria they have not done their job. The financing situation for juniors has been poor for some time, so would a competent CFO consistently leave posted on their website the fall 2013 start date ? The CFO wrote the first reverse was being done to advance the company, I am not sure what advancement occurred. These are their projections and their words. Shouldnt management be accountable for their own record ?
So, ok what about CEO salary- how can that be justified ? As 1manband ably showed the press releases and SEC filings have not followed SEC Guide 7, and as a member of SME CEO should know better than to sign off on the press releases trying to utilize NI43-011 references forpromotional purposes.
I doubt that this is any more than a part time venture of CEO, what results the last two years justify the CEO's salary ?
Why arent related party accounts payable clearly descibed on the financials so one would know what is paid in cash or not ?
Well certainly logical for them to build profit from existing operations which with company's superb narrow-vein mining experience I am sure they are doing. The reason for an acquisition is that this company has been consistently undervalued- partly because they are too large for many speculative people in junior market, ot large enough for some institutions, and simply with gold and silver at recent lows good time to buy assets.
The stock is undervalued, and for me I am looking at the 2014 or 2015 period for a major move upwards a mines start recovering, and exploration results advance. I agree costly to acquire companies or properties , but watching the paint dry not so much fun.
Fair enough I have repeated the question. I did so because i was curious if anyone could name anything that would justify the salary level.One reverse I could understand, but the second to me was because CFO could not use the second CFO to improve the company's situation. as far as what he is paid until company provides better disclosure I can only go by what they claim his salary is.
I have also posted that I believe the faulty,misleading and untimely disclosures , in my opinion , precluded and preclude any serious investor taking this CFO seriously.
But I stand corrected, I wont ask again what justifies this salary.
Lucky to have management ?? I dont understand. Do you mean company is lucky to have anyone willing to manage at this point ? Or do you mean this management ? If the latter then I am a bit curious by what criteria are shareholders "lucky" to have these managers ?
Lucky to have management ?? I dont understand. Do you mean company is lucky to have anyone willing to manage at this point ? Or do you mean this management ? If the latter then I am a bit curious by what criteria are shareholders "lucky" to have these managers ?
Or proof he doesnt. What we do know is what company discloses is that it is his salary and he gets paid in cash or shares.
Second, I still pose the queston does CFO performance merit such a salary ?
If a "so called outrageous employment agreement" not outrageous I am still waiting for anyone to outline the performance which justifies such a salary.
It should be so difficult to determine what CFO was paid, which highlights difficulty in their disclosures. f paid in shares then there should be regular updated Form 4 filings. If part paid in cash, then that should be clear at least in 10k filings, and even 10q on related party payable balances.
Mining equities suffer from short term swings in commoidty prices and investor sentiment. Considering the still high commodity prices, mining equities overall are priced low. Finding a company with solid cash flow, diversification in mines and geographic locations, can prove to be a long run or medium term winner for the patient. I cant predict short term swings with 90% accuracy nor can anone else- of even 70% accuracy " otherwise mutualfunds would beat the market over th elong run which generally they dont
No one disagrees that part of their compensation may be partially in stock. But there are unanswered questions.
First, if their salary issued in shares everytime they receive shares the Form 4 needs to be filed. It doesnt appear that the Form 's reflect steady issuance of shares.
Second, no way they would hold on to shares as they are taxable on receipt. So they will not hold and pay taxes on higher amount.So idea that they suffered los from the reverses doesnt make sense to me.
Third, 10q and 10k not clear at all how much is pain in cash or shares or acccrud, but is clear CO made $350,000 last year.
I strongly suspect that the com
I would ask though for the key point to be addressed- does the CFO's performance the last two years justifiy a salary of $300,000 per year ? Eeven if not paid how can this company with such dismal performance, and likely continued dismal performance justify incurring this sort of liability every year ?
If you read the book "Hecla-A Century of Mining" ( I think that is title) you will see that hecla has had lots of ups and downs over 100 years. Management culture is long-term at Hecla, so they are a real blue chip in a speculative industry.
Eventually they willcontrol evenmore of teh silver valley than they do now, and develop additinal mines step by step elswhere.
Brokers tell me they need another acuisition to build market cap so bigger instiutions will start trading the stock more.Hopefully they can acquire a Mexican silver producer while silver stocks are low.
Good point,appears to be completely legal for directors to approve their own salary agreements as officers.
Still waiting though for someone to point how these are reasonable salaries based on performance.It would have seemed even the true believers in this stock would on this issue agree these salaries are exhorbitant.
Why a scam ? the company owns some real assets, a lot of exploration ground. it doesnt pump out constant press releases nor incur lots of convertible debt, disclosure seems in accordance with SEC Guide 7. Management put together some successes before.
In response-The company filings should show payables to related parties or at least what the CFO is making in cash or share compensation. They show by company's own disclosure a salary plus bonus for the CFO last 10k of $350,000. Do we know how much cash paid ? Shares should be reported on form 4 for any increase or decrease, however it is not clear the Fom 4's reflect s8 stock issuances.
So the evidence such as it is , coming from the company itself is that CFO made $350,000 on the last 10k. How much was cash we dont know. How much s8 stock that was sold on the market we should know from Form 4's unles not reported there.
If $350,000 then there are employer taxes to pay as well.
So how does a company with this dismal performance and bringing in what cash they did per quarter justify not only the salary but the employer taxes on top of that ?
Whether CFO actually collected the full amount, or timed s8 shares to receive more , we dont know but as 1manband points out according to US GAAP at the minimum whatever not paid is a liability of the company.
Quite agree. 10k shows $350,000, and makes a reference to class A shares for what hasnt been paid in cash- but amount of class A shares mentioned doesnt seem to be much.It is not at all clear to me how much was paid in cash and how much in shares.
I guess it will be interesting for someone posting on this board to provide any justification for this salary, I dont see any based on any criteria I know.
Success at generating sales,profits or operating cash flow ? NO.
Success at meeting stated corporate objectives ? NO
Success at delivering good shareholder return ? NO.
Success at providing a foundation for future ? None that is apparent.
I am not sure why prior post said his performance depends on performance ( what he produces) as I do not see that in his employment agreement or history of the company the last 2 years.
Whether he is paid $300,000 on schedule or not, do you believe the CFO's track record merits this sort of salary ?
Yes one can read the form 4's though I am not sure whether they are including s8 sales in their form 4 filings.
blanket statements such as you have emailed do not enlighten anyone as to what exactly do you claim is misinformation.
You wrote that he doesnt get paid unless he actually produces.
-I do not see in the emploment contract anything that confirms he will only get paid if he produces.
I was referring to his newly filed employment agreement and going forward, which I think is clear, in reference to the $300,000 salary the compay has agreed to.
As far as the past, with all respct you avoid commenting on the key issue - for this "employee" what evidence is there the last 2 years of performance meriting $300,000 per year ?
As to what he has actualy been paid according to the 10q and form 4 filings in the past I cannot figure out what his cash compensation has been. Considering the millions of $ paid according to financial statements for convertible notes ,property and services, it is a stretch to believe CFO not making a decent return on his time ( which I doubt is full time).
Ficose must be referring to CFO producing by either issuing more shares or securing more convetible debt. Either way with teh continued lack of performance by the company, all this means shareholders will continual to suffer relentless declines in te stock.
There as a reference to interactive brokers being able to short this stock, they have indicated to me on 3 different occassions they cannot short this stock. So retail shareholder as far as I can see cant make money on this stock except for any brief upticks based on inane press releases.
I am interested though if anyone can provide 1 single justification for CFO making $300,000 per year.
Let's be objective ! Where in his contract are there specific or even general benchmarks that identify what he has to produce results or he isnt paid ? What in in CFO's results the past 2 years is there any indication he is worth $300,000 a year ? I really am flabbergasted by this board sometimes- these are simple basic questions, but responses avoid the issue of non-performance by this CFO by his own stated objectives for the company. If I am wrong in this opinion why not post a logical answer to these issues ? I admit many contracts perhaps not specific on benchmarks, but considering the dismal performance of this CFO there should be !
All he has to produce to get paid is eitehr more convertible debt, or issue sufficient shares to get paid. Plus he controls the votes so no worry the CEO will step in to demand performance !
Yes completly insane these salaries. What is extemely interesting is the posts responding to this issue - not one has provided the slightest justification for these salaries.
It is quite amazing how management doesnt meet its own projectons repeatedly, clearly hasnt a clue about proper and timely disclosure for a junior mining company, yet this board has people who jump on anyone pointing out facts or opinions that have some justification.
The CFO has not shown he is worth $300,000 per year. There doesnt appear to be an industry standard that a company with this track record, market cap and balance sheet should be paying ( or nees to pay) $300,000 a year to the CFO. You are completely correct often people with CFO position with junior companies work for two or three companies to make $100 or $150k per year.
For that matter, how can this company afford to pay the employer taxes which are due whether paid in cash or shares ?