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.
That's right. Words do mean things and I would suggest reading and understand them. I will put it as simple as I can...
There are two significant dates on an Artical of Amendment. One is the amendment's adoption date and the other is the amendment's effective date. They are different for a reason. Just because something is adopted does not mean that it is immediately effictive... or even EVER goes into effect.
As seen on page four of the filing the effective date is blank. As such, it did not go into effect at that time. Furthermore, the effective date can be no more than 90 days after amendment FILE DATE.
Can' wait. I sure could use some.
Or the "comparisons" are completely relavent but require common sense to apply to the current situation. The next filing will clear things up. Until then, it is all opinion.
Just because they haven't yet doesn't mean they won't. The more important questions are... Is this bottom and what will the PPS be if/when they do?
If a check is dated with a bill due date but sent to a debtor a year later, does the debtor go by the signed date or the date it was received?
Correct. It isnt hard at all. It just takes common sense.
Also, GDSM has no control over what other claims are being PR'd by other companies. Are they guilty by non-association?
Very much agree.
Market makers doing their thing.
Thanks for that but my point all along here has been that what is being claimed as fact are not actually fact but instead hopes. Additionally, the actual facts that are being presented are dismissed as "innuenduo and half truths". Even SIRG knows the difference and states it in every filing. Here are some important statements to concider...
Our estimate of ore reserves at the Chloride Copper Mine is based on total copper assays rather than soluble copper assays.
A reserve estimate based on total copper is an indirect measurement of copper recovery through leaching. Accordingly, we may have over-estimated the amount of recoverable copper at the Chloride Copper Mine.
We have not had any significant revenues since our inception and there is no assurance that we will be able to achieve the financing necessary to
enable us to precede with our exploration activities.
Our financial condition raises substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.
We have an accumulated deficit of $10,242,246 as of December 31, 2011, and our auditor has issued a going concern opinion. This means that there is
substantial doubt whether we can continue as an ongoing business. We will need substantial financing to conduct our planned exploration activities; if we fail
to obtain sufficient financing, we will be unable to pursue our business plan or our business operations will have to be curtailed or terminated, in which case
you will lose part or all of your investment in our common stock.
There can be no assurance that all necessary approvals and permits will be obtained and, if obtained, that the costs involved will not exceed those that we previously estimated or the
costs and delays associated with regulatory compliance could become such that we will be unable to proceed with our development activities or operations.
There can be no assurance that the Company will receive material value for the tailings
Actually not.
The Gold Star that GDSM has interest in is in Arizona... not Nevada.
Multiple junior miners can have interest in one claim site.
The monetary claims being made are irrelevant since they are neither from WSRA or GDSM.
Jumping to conclusions without doing proper DD is a good way to lose money.
The Gold Star that GDSM has interest in is in Arizona... not Nevada.
Multiple junior miners can have interest in one claim site.
Not only my opinion but also the opinion of many seasoned investors in this market. An investor who buys based on the O/S and thinks that it will remain the same is foolish. The fully diluted A/S valuation method is a tried and true means of not making a foolish investment decision.
SIRG is a perfect example of this. The A/S has now over doubled and the OS has tripled in just over two years. Additionally, the rate of O/S increase is increasing and if the trend continues it will be close to 600 million by the end of this year. Which, I suspect, the reason for the A/S increase.
O/S increase...
Dec. 2010 - 117,552,000
Dec. 2011 - 206,804,004
Sep. 2012 - 347,833,085
The chart for the above time frame paints the picture perfectly...
It would only be wrong if SIRG were not in the OTCs. While in a reputable blue chip stock, the O/S is used for valuations, in this market smart investors use the A/S since dilution is assumed. Since SIRG has no revenue and a history of convertible toxic debt notes (that they haven't been paying), that methodology definitely holds true here.
But of course. Just like how the verifiable and factual information posted straight from the filings are "lies, rumors, and innuendos". What's an investor to believe? LOL
Yes if 0.035 is an accurate valuation. I have yet to see the math for that valuation though.
Because media is always 100% legitimate and accurate.
None of those sources are dependable for "real facts". Investors should look at the filings before anything else. After an investor looks at the SIRG filings, they won't need or want to look any farther.
Where is the record of this interview that is continually mentioned?
Last time that happened the PPS increased 8000% with huge volume.
The information provided on that site is based on probabilities from historical data of similar companies with similar financial records. So, based on data from other companies that were in the same position that SIRG is currently in, only 2% of those companies did not have to file bankruptcy in two years.
That site is completely unbiased toward any company. The claim that they would like to see SIRG go defunct is ridiculous.
Great post! That site pretty much sums up the state of SIRG...
Chance of
Bankruptcy More
Than 98%
In The Next Two Years
Sierra Resource Group Inc has more than 98.0 (%) percent chance of experiencing financial distress in the next 2 years of operations.
Time will tell but so far the history of SIRG says otherwise.
Just like all of the toxic financing that has occurred so far, any further financing deal will have to be submitted to the SEC via an 8-K or included in a 10-Q or 10-K. Since no filing has been made as such, no financing agreement (contingent or otherwise) has happened.
There is no change at all that any reputable lender will finance SIRG given the toxic finance deals that they have made and their failure to pay back said deals. The only option SIRG has is the same one that they have been using to this point. That is the high interest, short term toxic financing that they have not been making payments on.
Due to the lack of payments (among other failures), Grand View has now forced their hand. The enforcement of terms by Grand View is the last "coffin nail" for SIRG. Once they default, as their history dictates that they will, the mine will belong to Grand View and SIRG will have nothing to leverage a loan against.
With nothing left except shares to sell, SIRG will dilute the common stock for all that it is worth. Finally, with a worthless stock, no financing and no mine the last option will be bankruptcy. Once bankruptcy is filed, the common stock will be dissolved and investors will have nothing.
So which version of the truth do the company's own filings represent?
What is SIRG's debt to equity ratio?
Not a good sign.
As a GDSM investor that has actually been here for 4 years... I have no concern. There has been plenty of action during that time and will be more to come.
Exactly right!
Excellent post. Thanks varok!
The referenced post is a conspiracy theory at best. There is nothing to support it.
Some corrections...
CEO has gone delinquent on filing
CATASTROPHIC DILUTIVE increase in A/S
Massive debt over $13 MILLION
NO real money or assets even after accumulating $13 MILLION in debt
Falsified information in PRs and 100% HISTORY OF OPERATIONAL FAILURE
It is nonsense that someone would claim that GDSM has a plan for these shares or won't see them added into the market.
...ILLEGAL BANKRUPTCY EVASION
The announcement of the A/S increase was made on Oct. 4, 2012, revised on Nov. 9, 2012, officially defined on Dec. 27, 2012 and went into effect mid Jan., 2013.
While there may be copper at the mine, having it "in hand" to sell is a different story entirely. It doesn't matter if the EA or APP gets approved if SIRG is financially incapable of ever producing. Also, the entire idea is moot if they default and lose the mine to Grand View who now holds the deed in trust.
The current $3.74/lb. price of copper is not the price SIRG would receive. A lesser price would be negotiated with a buyer who would also be trying to make a profit. Additionally, there are overhead costs to consider.
It would be different if SIRG voluntarily used the mine for collateral up front. In this case, Grand View is forcing SIRG to do so and the terms of the agreement are not something any company would want if they had a choice. It would also be different if SIRG had been making the agreed upon payments on their notes. Now they have to make the payments to not only Grand View but, by the terms of the agreement, to all of their note holders as well. There is no margin for error in that agreement for SIRG.
They would probably liquidate the asset and apply that amount to the note. Any amount remaining would still be owed.
Good point. Grand View isn't playing around. They latest 8-K leaves SIRG very little breathing room. They haven't been paying notes prior to now and now they have more notes with higher interest and still no revenue. Now, it's either pay or lose their rights to the mine. Where will the money come from?
An SEC filing is the best DD that one can use since it will typically contain just the facts and no "spin". A PR can contain pretty much anything as long as it has the disclaimer at the bottom.
I think that the mention of how SIRG had to sign the mine deed over to Grand View in trust is quite interesting myself. They better start making payments on all of their notes or they are going to lose the mine.