No worries, I too had noticed the same thing earlier.

Crusher,

It appears the site has stopped displaying level 2 quotes for all stocks. Did you try entering any other symbols or merely DGRI? Try entering another symbol and I think you'll find the same.

Good buddy! Be well!

Dobe,

Just wanted to tell you hello my friend. Hope you're doing well!

I had no fewer than five friends personally visit the Benton mine and mill when they were formerly producing from it. They saw it all including talking with some of the miners. As you noted, the problem appearently was that they got off vein and were paying to process rock that had low gold concentrations. As you note, it was not economically feasible. If I had to guess, Hollis was lead to believe Benton was a more economically feasible play than it turned out to be.

Bankshot,

Thanks for chiming in old friend. I read your post and while I always find your passion and diligence impressive, I simply disagree with a great deal of which you say. I'm content to continue to agree to disagree considering none of this merits a further wasting of time.

As noted, we aren't talking a Fortune 500 New York Stock Exchange listed company here. The fact some can find issues to point at should be of little to no surprise to anyone. Where you and I simply disagree is with respect to management's intent and that you consider the company a scam. I've done more than enough personal research into the company to comfortably state that is far from the case. Have they made mistakes? Absolutely yes, I've never suggested otherwise.

Time will tell how things work out. I continue to look at it as though risk is a mere one penny and upside a potential multiple of that, it's simply math. If you accept the risk, then the reward could be considered sizeable. Either way, it's a speculative penny stock and everyone should understand the risk.

Regardless, best to you and yours.

Crusher,

I must ask you a simple question.

Why do you believe Dutch has maintained itself as a reporting entity with the SEC while legally not being required to do so? As you know, few pink sheet listed companies would ever voluntarily subject themselves to such scrutiny and costs when not legally required to do so or if they had anything to hide.

Why do you believe Dutch has spent such time, expense and effort to put itself directly under the watchful eyes of regulators when not even legally required to do so? If some of your theories were accurate, does it not seem like their actions would be completely contrary to what one may logically expect?

In light of your theories, I must ask you a simple question.

Why do you believe Dutch has maintained itself as a reporting entity with the SEC while legally not being required to do so? As you know, few pink sheet listed companies would ever voluntarily subject themselves to such scrutiny and costs when not legally required to do so or if they had anything to hide.

Why do you believe Dutch has spent such time, expense and effort to put itself directly under the watchful eyes of regulators when not even legally required to do so? If some of your theories were accurate, does it not seem like their actions would be completely contrary to what one may logically expect?

Happy to help Traz.

Same to you my friend! TY!

D4,

I'll have to look at what you received in return. The matter has never been a great deal of concern to me.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/gold-double-5-years-says-frank-holmes-145705430.html

H3,

As a fellow shareholder of yours in Dutch Gold, I believe it of little to no relevance just as previously stated.

I can't speak to PD's motive, but have absolutely no issue with him asking any question whatsoever, he has every right to. I would again highlight the simple fact Dutch has maintained itself as a reporting entity with the SEC while legally not being required to do so. It has born a substantial cost in order to promote transaparency, solely on its and shareholders accord. I've long stated few pink sheet listed companies would ever voluntarily subject themselves to such scrutiny and costs when not legally required to do so or if they had anything to hide.

Pd,

While I applaud you uncovering potential unscrupulous acts done by persons such as you're referencing, I would again simply note that the 24 million shares you're in search of, is really only 240,000 shares having been subject to a 1 for 100 reverse split. I would further presume that the attorney is most likely still in possession of them.

I would point you to your previously posted comments:

"The Buyer acknowledges that 24,325,000 of the pre-reverse split Shares are currently being held without permission by Randall Lanham, an attorney in California located at 28562 Oso Parkway, Suite D, Rancho Santa Margarita, California 92688"

Note 24 million PRE-REVERSE SPLIT. It was a 1 for 100 making the 24 million then a mere 240,000.

Dr,

Some may be well served to recall the company did a 1 for 100 reverse split which means the referenced attorney only has 240,000 shares, or $2400 worth of the company's stock. While I would assume Dutch's attorney has been working on the issue and that the shares haven't gone anywhere, and likely won't, we're again talking about only 240,000 shares. Additionally, remember that any restricted shares have to go through the transfer agent to facilitate their being free'd of their restrictive legend and able to sell, therefore he couldn't sell them even if he wanted to since Dutch management and counsel has to authorize their restrictive legends being removed. I'm sure at some point, he will be forced to give them up, and the shares will go to the rightful owners, whoever that may be, again all 240,000 shares and NOT 24 million.

While I can't speak of the attorney's seemingly "interesting" purported history having never heard of him before, I would suggest the matter appears of little to consequence to Dutch Gold and its shareholders. Frankly, it wouldn't be the first time the company possibly crossed paths with some who may not necessarily had the company or us shareholders best interest in mind.

The transparency is remarkeable for any company, let alone a pink sheet one with no obligation to even file financials, let alone hold a conference call where investors can ask questions. I think it all speaks to the integrity of the now multi-member team.

If they can simply do what they appear to be focussed on doing and that is establish production out of Basin Gulch, then suffice it to say, the shares could and should be dicernably higher. It's all now about execution.

I think it is a rather safe assumption that no company would ever subject themselves to the prospects of a completely open and on the record Q&A session with investors if they had anything to hide. I hope this once and for all quiets some of the skeptics misdirected and intentionally bias commentary. Had they any legitimate questions or concerns, that call would have been the opportune time to ask.

I have to say, having followed the company for years, I had never actually heard any of the others involved with the company speak except Hollis. I'm quite impressed with the actual depth of management including Pertu and the new CFO. There's much more of a team here than even I perceived.

While I don't typically invest in penny stocks, this has to be one of the few capable of promoting such corporate transparency, let alone pulling off a pretty nice conference call.

I specifically liked their affirmation that this is only an equity play for management. Their goals are 100% aligned with ours as shareholders.

I was genuinely pleased with how management presented and handled questions. You simply won't find many other companies of this size behaving similarly, let alone being willing to subject themselves to such critique in an open forum which the call offered.

Yes.

J7? How do you guys know James? No way!

If the posters here could ask management any question, what would you ask?

Crusher,

I was just curious how you arrived at the conclusion the company is under a formal investigation as you suggest? How do you know it's a formal investigation as opposed to an inquiry? Would you mind explaining the difference? I read the filing and although they term it "investigation" how do you know it's not simply an inquiry which many company's are subject to?

You and I both know that if they halted trading on every company who is the subject of an informal inquiry or request for documentation from the SEC, there would be no shortage of companies being forbidden from trading.

I'm just curious if you have confirmed you comments by contacting the Commission or is this solely your own determination? While I can't speak to the validity of your comments or not, and am not contesting them, I was wondering how you could be so sure considering the filing does not state it conclusively.

I think this is great and they should have been at it a long time ago. Knowing this, why would you suggest any pink sheet company, not obligated to even file a report with the SEC period, would go to such great lengths and cost to voluntarily do so like in the case of Dutch Gold? As rational as you are, even you must agree that any company or it's management, would never voluntarily subject themselves to such scrutiny if they had anything to hide, let alone absorbing additional costs associated with the amending of older filings to reflect complete accuracy.

It would appear paramount to you stealing a car and then parking it in your driveway for all to see. It simply doesn't make sense. Even you would have to concur that regardless of your feelings about the company, it's notable that they have voluntarily filed with the SEC while under no obligation to do so. They have voluntarily opened themselves up to you and other critics, again while being under no legal obligation to disclose anything.

I believe those capable of objectivity could only view this as telling.

Keep up the good work. I think the majority of what you post very educational and important for investors to be aware of. I also think to your own dismay, sometimes you actually inadvertently succeed in clearly delineating Dutch as a standout from many of the non-transparent pink sheet companies which really have no business being public considering they do not conduct themselves like a public company.

Stretch,

I am figuring nothing from Arizona. I'm still not sure that will prove to be a viable opportunity. I would exempt it from any considerations for the time being.

The key is that all they need to do is produce 10-20,000 ounces from Basin Gulch and we should be in good shape. The irony in all of this is that I figure the company is only about $1 million in capital away from possibly never needing to borrow another dime, being able to sustain itself on its own cashflow.

It's always that last little amount that's like cresting the mountain. Literally probably a million in capital needed to be able to begin monetizing a potential multi-billion dollar resource opportunity.

I'm pretty familiar with the process Stock and have come across most of these financiers you probably spoke with. I'd prefer to call them bottom feeders as opposed to actual financiers because they do pray on small companies needs for capital. While I'm not sure who you spoke to, I'm confident Dutch did not discount shares anywhere close to the percentages you reference. Nonetheless, it's not the discount that creates the toxicity, it's the need for additional capital and the repetition of the process that does.

That's why I noted, and I would think the company is aware, of their need to alleviate the use of issuing shares that are immediately convertible considering debt conversions are not subject to being issued as 144 restricted certificates. Even having investors take restricted shares would give the company six months of room to allow the shares to not be subject to the constant pressure.

I would hope the company is actively working on more favorable arrangements. It is afterall to management's own best interest considering their large share holdings and the fact they have loaned the company considerable sums over time. The only was they win and prosper is through share appreciation. Therefore, anything done to you and me, they are only doing to themselves.

Lastly, my model has a fully diluted 750 million shares out while producing as many as 10-20,000 ounces under a small miners permit. If they can do this, clearly the current price is compelling and the upside significant. They have the assets, they now need to execute. Run the numbers yourself and you'll see it's one of the best speculative bets out there considering risk is limited to a mere penny. With risk comes reward. People just need to accept the risk as high just as is the case with any penny stock.

I would suspect the discount nominal and far below your 33-50% suggested discount. Most of these type of financiers are only looking for 10-15% quick roi considering they flip the money quickly. I would suspect the cheapest shares sold were at around 1 cent. Despite the discount not likely being significant, it is the repetition of the process which obviously creates toxicity. Let's hope the days of having to utilize such sources of funds is growing to a close.

Short,

In a perfect world, they would obtain more favorable financing. Trust me, it's easier said than done. Unless you'd been involved in trying to secure friendly financing for a small pink sheet company, you'd likely not fully understand how problematic it can be. I bet Hollis more than anyone would love nothing more than to find just what you'd suggest. Problem is that it's simply not available to them at this stage.

Let's not kid ourselves, what they are doing is not easy by any stretch of the imagination. I've long stated I believed anyone else other than Hollis would have walked away a long time ago. While it may not be currently pretty, most other companies in similar situations would have been out of business quite some time ago. You can say a lot of things about Hollis but quitter shouldn't be one of them.

It's critical that you remember that anything they do to shareholders, they are only doing to themselves. Management being extremely large shareholders only means that they too are paying a price for the company having to finance itself at such low levels. Remember that recent a recent filing revealed that Hollis has actually loaned the company close to $500k if I recall correctly, one must assume he'd like to be paid back, wouldn't you?

Considering this is clearly an equity play for management and they are only rewarded if the shares increase in value, I would hope they would only raise a little more needed capital to bring them to that inflection point when they may begin pulling some gold and monetizing it. Considering a small miners permit allows them to disturb five 5 acres, these recent test results are clearly important in identifying the best place to produce from.

If successful, and it remains an if, it would appear feasible that they may be capable of pulling as much as 10,000-20,000 ounces out of Basin Gulch annually just under the small miners permit.

I can tell you're clearly intelligent, you can run the numbers and figure what this could mean for potential revenues and earnings. Even based on 750 million shares which is the number in my own model, you get a possible conservative valuation a significant multiple of current levels.

At the current price, at least you know your risk and its very limited, just one penny in fact. Like they say, if it were easy, wouldn't everyone be doing it?

I too would hope they are close to no longer having to participate in the adverse financings which have been so burdensome and counter productive to building value. It's my belief that they are and we should hopefully see the shares no longer burdoned by this consistent supply. They really shouldn't be that far from being able to produce the ounces you discussed earlier. As you noted, only 10-20,000 ounces is capable of changing this company dramatically and forever. They just have to get there.

Short,

In a perfect world, they would obtain more favorable financing. Trust me, it's easier said than done. Unless you'd been involved in trying to secure friendly financing for a small pink sheet company, you'd likely not fully understand how problematic it can be. I bet Hollis more than anyone would love nothing more than to find just what you'd suggest. Problem is that it's simply not available to them at this stage.

Let's not kid ourselves, what they are doing is not easy by any stretch of the imagination. I've long stated I believed anyone else other than Hollis would have walked away a long time ago. While it may not be currently pretty, most other companies in similar situations would have been out of business quite some time ago. You can say a lot of things about Hollis but quitter shouldn't be one of them.

It's critical that you remember that anything they do to shareholders, they are only doing to themselves. Management being extremely large shareholders only means that they too are paying a price for the company having to finance itself at such low levels. Remember that recent a recent filing revealed that Hollis has actually loaned the company close to $500k if I recall correctly, one must assume he'd like to be paid back, wouldn't you?

Considering this is clearly an equity play for management and they are only rewarded if the shares increase in value, I would hope they would only raise a little more needed capital to bring them to that inflection point when they may begin pulling some gold and monetizing it. Considering a small miners permit allows them to disturb five 5 acres, these recent test results are clearly important in identifying the best place to produce from.

If successful, and it remains an if, it would appear feasible that they may be capable of pulling as much as 10,000-20,000 ounces out of Basin Gulch annually just under the small miners permit.

I can tell you're clearly intelligent, you can run the numbers and figure what this could mean for potential revenues and earnings. Even based on 750 million shares which is the number in my own model, you get a possible conservative valuation a significant multiple of current levels.

At the current price, at least you know your risk and its very limited, just one penny in fact. Like they say, if it were easy, wouldn't everyone be doing it?

Nice to see and thanks for the highlights DR.

Agree Josh. The key to me is not the current standard deviation of the stock, but rather getting to the point where the company further prooves out its resources, begins some actual production and generates some revenues. That said, I continue to believe the current price grossly undervalues the company's assets.

Why Synergy Pharmaceuticals Could Go From $4 to $40 by: James Altucher May 16, 2011 | about: IRWD, SGYP.PK Font Size:

Morgan Joseph just put out a report saying that Synergy Pharmaceuticals (SGYP.PK), a $300mm market cap company, is worth $15 a share. The stock is currently at $3.60 as I write this. I’ve rarely seen such a discrepancy from an analyst report price target and the actual price. Oh, wait; I actually have seen such a discrepancy: When Pharmathene (PIP) was at $1.70 and this exact same analyst (he was at Noble then) called it a $20 stock. Pharmathene is now at $4.

SGYP develops a compound for curing irritable bowel syndrome as it relates to constipation. Obviously this is a huge market. More on this in a second.

I want to explain first why I like the analyst: Raghuram Selvaraju, who has a Ph.D. in biotech. Anyone who knows how I invest knows that I like to follow success. Here’s Dr. Selvaraju's track record. He initiated coverage on Amarin (AMRN) at $0.85 a share just two years ago in 2009; now it has a market cap of $2.4 billion and stands today at $17.44 per share. He started coverage on SIGA and PIP before both stocks took off. Last year he initiated a buy on IBIO (IBIO) at $0.80 per share; within three months it hit $4.50 per share. He initiated coverage on Achillion Pharma (ACHN) at $2.70 in July 2010 and it went to $7.00 by Febraury 2011. He knows how to identify diamonds in the rough. That’s the kind of success I like to follow.

This is the key paragraph in the report, in my opinion, and I’ll explain why this paragraph means SGYP is worth $15 or even higher:


Over 100 million people worldwide are estimated to suffer from constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-C) or chronic constipation (CC) …. In our view, Synergy’s lead drug candidate, plecanatide, is a substantially risk-mitigated asset, as this drug has already demonstrated proof-of-concept efficacy in a Phase 2a study and shown exemplary safety, with no incidence of diarrhea as a significant adverse event. In addition, we note that linaclotide, a closely related compound that shares a mechanism of action with plecanatide, has demonstrated positive efficacy results in four Phase 3 trials, spanning both IBS-C and CC. Linaclotide ? developed by Ironwood Pharmaceuticals ? is the subject of three high-profile corporate partnerships with Forest Laboratories (FRX) in the U.S., Astellas (ALPMF.PK) in Asia, and Almirall S.A. in Europe.

So why is this the big paragraph? The drug is basically the same as the Ironwood (IRWD) drug. In fact, the scientists come out of the same lab. The Ironwood drug works, so we know the Synergy drug will work. However -- and this is key -- the Ironwood drug had the adverse effect that it causes diarrhea. So while the drug works (you get rid of the constipation), some might view this as a negative.

In fact, According to a Merrill Lynch report written by research analyst Rachel McMinn on October 6, 2010 about the Synergy drug, "The one specific detail noted is that none of the patients experienced diarrhea, a side effect noted with [the Ironwood drug]." She also notes, "the mechanism of action of the two drugs is identical."

In other words, we have a potential $20bb market with two drugs that act the same, except one drug causes "Montezuma's revenge" (Ironwood) and the other doesn't (Synergy).

You might wonder: So Synergy and Ironwood are basically the same except this one negative on Ironwood; shouldn't their market caps be similar? And what’s Ironwood’s market cap and what’s Synergy’s?

Ironwood has a $1.5 billion market cap. Synergy's is $324 million -- an almost 400% upside potential on Synergy. By the way, Ironwood only owns 50% of the rights to its product, while Synergy owns 100% of the rights. So now you can double their upside potential, which is why I think Morgan Joseph is too conservative with the $15 target and the stock can easily be $25-30.

Actually, even Morgan Joseph acknowledges its $15 target is too conservative. On Page 7 of the same report it states:

We would note that, if plecanatide were to be valued similar to linaclotide, the implied price per share of Synergy stock would approach $45, without considering Synergy’s pipeline.

What’s the downside? I have no idea. Synergy works as well as Ironwood, and companies in the sector are getting acquired left and right (the Morgan Joseph report mentions Shire (SHPGY) buying Movetis for $600mm).

Before you start slinging the pump and dump accusations, look at my track record, Trust that I’m a long-term holder and have researched the space, and look at Dr. Selvaraju’s track record.

Then, if you want to short the stock, look at the effectiveness and history of the SGYP drug and the IRWD drug and compare the two. Read the Merrill Lynch reports on the companies. Read the Morgan Joseph report which came out Friday and compare the market caps of the two companies.

Disclosure: I am long SGYP.PK, PIP, SIGA.

Additional disclosure: I may trade these positions in any way at any time.

SGYP $3.70

Morgan Joseph Starts Synergy Pharmaceuticals (SGYP) at Buy; Cracking Chronic Constipation

Morgan Joseph initiates coverage on Synergy Pharmaceuticals (OTCBB: SGYP) with a Buy. PT $15.

Morgan analyst says, "We believe Synergy represents a unique investment opportunity in the gastrointestinal (GI) disorders space, targeting a significant unmet medical need with a novel, safe, and effective drug...The current market for chronic constipation (CC) and constipation-predominant irritable bowel
syndrome (IBS-C) is substantial, with over 100mm people estimated to suffer from these disorders in the U.S., Europe, and Japan - We believe this creates a compelling opportunity for firms like Synergy, since plecanatide is based on a naturally-occurring hormone called uroguanylin and utilizes an evolutionarily-derived mechanism of action."

"Attractive Valuation - Synergy's current market cap of <$300mm does not adequately value the potential of plecanatide and the firm's platform technology, in our view. We derive our 12-month price target using a risk-adjusted Net Present Value (rNPV) approach, which assumes launch of the drug in 2015 and peak sales of roughly $4.4bn in 2021, the last year prior to U.S. patent expiry."

For more ratings news on Synergy Pharmaceuticals click here and for the rating history of Synergy Pharmaceuticals click here.

Shares of Synergy Pharmaceuticals closed at $3.03 yesterday, with a 52 week range of $1.01-$11.00.

Morgan Joseph Starts Synergy Pharmaceuticals (SGYP) at Buy; Cracking Chronic Constipation

Morgan Joseph initiates coverage on Synergy Pharmaceuticals (OTCBB: SGYP) with a Buy. PT $15.

Morgan analyst says, "We believe Synergy represents a unique investment opportunity in the gastrointestinal (GI) disorders space, targeting a significant unmet medical need with a novel, safe, and effective drug...The current market for chronic constipation (CC) and constipation-predominant irritable bowel
syndrome (IBS-C) is substantial, with over 100mm people estimated to suffer from these disorders in the U.S., Europe, and Japan - We believe this creates a compelling opportunity for firms like Synergy, since plecanatide is based on a naturally-occurring hormone called uroguanylin and utilizes an evolutionarily-derived mechanism of action."

"Attractive Valuation - Synergy's current market cap of <$300mm does not adequately value the potential of plecanatide and the firm's platform technology, in our view. We derive our 12-month price target using a risk-adjusted Net Present Value (rNPV) approach, which assumes launch of the drug in 2015 and peak sales of roughly $4.4bn in 2021, the last year prior to U.S. patent expiry."

For more ratings news on Synergy Pharmaceuticals click here and for the rating history of Synergy Pharmaceuticals click here.

Shares of Synergy Pharmaceuticals closed at $3.03 yesterday, with a 52 week range of $1.01-$11.00.

I think you do a great job of doing exactly that my friend, appreciate your contributions.

Easy,

I would just again reiterate that the only way management makes thermselves a penny in this whole thing, getting back any of their own money loaned to the company and having taken years of their lives working for virtually no pay, is if they successfully build shareholder value in the form of a higher stock price.

Managements only upside remains their own significant equity holdings. People can post all they want to the contrary, but management's goals are alligned directly with it's shareholders. While it doesn't solidify success, they are heavily motivated to do that which it takes to create value.

Glad I could provide you some comic relief! I feel as though if I can make someone as jaded as you smile, I've made the world just a little better place. ;) Keep up the good work my friend.

Jolu,

The irony is that I believe this weeks developments as extremely positive. I think if some better understood them, they might just feel similarly. Regardless, if some uneducated shorter term oriented shareholders choose to sell, simply let them.

This is a penny stock and it's here for a reason. That said, it's hard to not be somewhat impressed with what management continues to slowly but surely accomplish with what is by all accounts, very limited resources.

Having a larger position than most here, I'm not concerned with the intra-day standard deviation in price. It is neither here nor there to me whether the stock is .126, .0146 or .0166 on any given day. Suffice it to say, if they execute, my personal longer term expectations remain much much higher. To me, buying this stock and worrying about every tenth of apenny move is just a waste of time and effort paramount to being penny wise and dollar foolish. While some will inevitably consider trading it, it's simply not my thing nor are the stakes considerable enough to merit the time.

If we're right, it should eventually be dicernably higher making this one of the best risk versus reward situations I've ever invested in. If we're wrong, then your risk is limited to a mere penny for the most part. Anyone who can't accept this risk has no business being invested. However, remember that with risk, often comes reward.

radar,

I find some here comical. It's like you're trying to be rational with a bunch of irrational children. Most don't even know that coarse gold essentially represents "free gold". Does anyone even read the releases or do they allow the stock price to dictate their opinions?

"A nearby historic drill hole, BG97-24RC, contained 0.1opt gold throughout its 400 foot length. Subsequent bulk testing of the historic hole's drill cuttings discovered 0.15 opt gold from the surface to 10 feet, underlain by 0.378 opt gold from 10 to 20 feet, and 0.215 opt gold from 110 to 120 feet."

Regarding your comment for those getting nervous, I still don't understand how good results would make anyone nervous. If their nervous, they should sell, it's simply not an appropriate investment for them.

Has anyone bothered to show this release to an actual expert in the space and asked them their thoughts? Not the couple guys here who love to pee on your head and tell you it's raining, but truly objective experts who are well versed on the space?

I suggest you do. At least that way you will all be properly educated and can make the appropriate decision on whether to invest or not. Frankly, I don't care what anyone else does but at least do it based on an accurate assessment of the publicly available info as opposed to some posters opinions which are frankly completely wrong and possibly intentionally misleading.

Traz,

It's really ok, if they want to leave, then let them. It's become quite apparent that many here don't really even understand the gold business, let alone today's press release. Let the company continue to do its thing finding coarse gold, I don't even think anyone understand the implications, and executing it's business plan. The company is doing everything they said they would.

Frankly, if people are dissapointed over simple standard deviation of a mere tenth of a penny or so, they honestly have no business being invested in the stock anyways. The irony is that the majority of them don't even realize the real potential implications of what Dutch may have and how todays results may be construed as extremely encouraging by those more knowledgable and experienced in the mining business.

Let them leave. If they don't get it, then it's probably not an appropriate investment for them anyways. Regardless of what the future brings for shareholders, I still can't imagine a more favorable risk reward situation than what Dutch offers with it's current market cap. A market cap that I believe continues to dramatically under value the companies real assets while offering limited risk of less than a mere 1.5 cents.

Dr,

I have purchased some shares recently.