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.
No. What's irresponsible is creating the situation that leaves people guessing and speculating.
I don't have to "guess" that there's a problem... since I see the evidence of it posted here. I don't have to guess what the impact on the people is, of management having created that problem... since I can see that here.
Investors observing the management's stupid tricks in act following upon act... don't have a responsibility to anything other than themselves and the truth.
It's also not rocket science, when you've seen the drill before, to note that employees experience paired with investors "guessing and speculation" is probably MORE ACCURATE than what the company, with noses growing longer over time, have been trying to pass off as "the truth"... ?
People know it when you lie to them. Not unreasonably, when it becomes habit... other people become habituated to the reasonable expectation.
That some find it useful to delude themselves... doesn't put the undies back on the naked emperor...
Even if they file something, it will take a day or two before the records are updated to reflect it... whether court filings or the SEC.
My guess is news will leak first, before filings come out.
Bankruptcy might change that... including that filing the bankruptcy might also result in unwinding some of the obviously bad decisions already made by the banks and the "consultants".
A lot will depend on the judge... and the options available will depend on the situation at the time, too.
I'd assume they'll try to time a filing to benefit them, not you...
Thus far, it looks like they're just letting it twist in the wind, hoping a stray gust might push things the right way... and not wanting to give it that push off the end of the pier... themselves.
Looks like there's probably a lot more calculating of liability going on than anything else at this point...
I don't think that provides "answers"... about timing.
This clearly looks like a business that COULD have been saved, if they'd put it into BK and made the changes that needed making.
Instead, they've opted for "twisting in the wind"... which tends to keep the skeletons in the closets they put them in...
What I see... is a group of abused employees actively being muzzled, who don't seem overly challenged in figuring out why the business isn't working... when management seem inordinately blind, deaf, and dumb, for some reason...
Why did the band keep playing as the Titanic sank ?
Because they did know how to play, and they didn't know how to build life boats.
I took some time off. Did a bit of reading. Spent time with family. And, what a mess this place has become ? Nothing in those novels I've been reading that isn't here, in spades...
Catching up, today, it is fascinating to observe the paycheck scandal. The company was actually helping people out by shifting a bit of cash out of their accounts and into paychecks... but, then, they couldn't bring themselves to be honest about what was happening or why ?
Of course, maybe the ""helping people out" part was just an unintended consequence of some other driver in their choices.
But, that one story is the best nutshell version of the critical aspects in the history I see here:
This company is failing mostly because they have an extreme integrity problem.
And, there clearly seems to be a pathology that REQUIRES them to lie to people... even when they'd be WAY better off just shootin straight.
They can't seem to help it. The first response to any situation... is to lie about it... ?
I've known people like that... but, don't recall ever seeing an entire organization that was as obviously based on it as CPIC is.
Here, it goes WAY beyond the failure to treat employees like adults, and WAY beyond the "you can't handle the truth" type of performance by Jack Nicholson.
Other than that... the other thing I note today is the obviousness of the trolls trying to chase unhappy employees off so that they won't file unemployment, which is pretty telling, too.
Pair those... and they're clearly working to browbeat people into being mindless drones...
It's shocking, frankly, that it's taken this long for the thing to fall apart.
LOL!!
Face it, this company is terminally screwed-up... and it isn't the way it is because the employees lack "Gentlemanship"...
Free markets require failed businesses that aren't working because of their bad management... like CPIC and the Bank of America... should be allowed to fail.
Apples and oranges ?
The big difference is open pit mining in Mexico, versus underground mining in Idaho...
Look at their projected costs?
http://www.orkosilver.com/s/Home.asp
They use a 25 g/t cut off for open pit mining, and a 60 g/t cut off for comparison with underground mining at $26 silver...
With the open pit, they're showing costs less than $25/ton for mining and processing with 250 million ounces silver equivalent at an average around 100 g/t, for an average around $7 an ounce.
With the underground mining model, they're showing 8 million ounces equivalent... hardly worth bothering with.
USSIF under Parker kept costs under control.
USGIF since Parker has lost control of costs, while the insiders focused instead on taking 1/3 of the company away from shareholders.
"The email also says they evolved from a letter of intent to buy, to a verbal agreement to be purchased..."
That would have to be "devolved" not "evolved" ?
An LOI is a contract... on paper... even if the "intent" being defined in that contract isn't actually all that binding rather than conditional.
How conditional versus binding it is... fully depends on the terms included in the contract itself. Some LOIs are solid contracts, missing only the elements in performance they require, and intend to bind. Others... are not much more and are not more binding than an invitation to kick the tires and then buy "if you want to"...
But, if an LOI implies a contract reduced to paper, whatever the nature of the contract formed...
A "verbal agreement" is... ahh... hmmm.
Not reduced to a written contract...
Until it is... you can't even be overly sure what it means, and what the two parties think they have agreed to.
The wording ? "to be purchased" ?
It's not shocking (or even newsworthy) that CPIC has made a verbal agreement "to be purchased"... given we already know full well enough that they're tying to sell it ?
The existence of an LOI... presupposes that agreement exists.
But, that's not the same thing as saying the other side in that "agreement" has made any sort of a commitment to doing the purchasing that the agreement of the seller "to be purchased" suggests...
So, from an investors perspective... the verbiage sounds like "spin" substituting "happy words" for a failure to follow through on what the LOI would have enabled...
I didn't say the company has issued shares exceeding the AS...
I said the shares are in the market.
I'd agree it would be generally useful to limit transactions to that number of shares that do actually exist, but, sadly, that's not market reality.
How much do they owe Asher ?
The OS may still be under the 600M in the AS, but there are already a billion shares and more in the market.
So, the real market cap is probably more like 100K than 60K given the fake shares being sold now...
Sad to see them trashing this shell...
But, when management took the $ from the last Asher contribution and transferred it outside the accounting oversight... that should have been the clue they were sticking the fork in it ?
Volume shows massive selling after Dec 2011... investors leaving... and another much smaller surge of selling after Dec 2012... as the few remaining optimists who'd stuck it out, or speculators who'd bet on a "fix" making CPIC better, tried to salvage their pennies before that money evaporates.
Noted your post re a pinch forming in IAG...
I think they have a couple of open ended risk factors that I'd want to see resolved before thinking the pinch was a good thing...
I know they're all pinchers for a reason...
But, at IAG, I know the reasons... and suspect there may be more bad days ahead... FWIW.
From a shareholders perspective... it shows the company actively and deliberately stealing value from shareholders... in order to have shareholders subsidize an effort to benefit the banks MORE.
And, whatever you're thinking... why ?
http://employeeissues.com/workplace_privacy.htm
Note, however, that the limits discussed here... apply to the employees uses of the company's property... not to their own private use of personal property located outside company premises.
Your choice to use your private property to benefit them... as you might if you communicate with them from home, using your own communications devices, doesn't give them any rights in your property, control over it, or a right to violate your privacy ?
If they are invading your home computer to determine what you are doing with your own property, on your own time, and are invading your private communications with others ? That's different.
That's actually criminal...
And, IF they did that... they'd be violating the law in the specific instance, while committing wire fraud... with it being a conspiracy to commit wire fraud in the aggregate.
Given prior history... probably not that far to crossing the boundaries in the RICO limits.
So, you'd want to know who told them to do it... IF they did...
Can't argue with that.
When you see a company abusing their core assets... that's probably all you should need to see, as an investor, to recognize that you're just as much a target of that abuse as others... and you shouldn't expect your interest and $ will be more respected than others.
Seems to me that the banks have been interfering in a way that is obviously mismanaging on purpose... perhaps trying to make legal liabilities go away with a failure... which isn't a solution to the problems, but evidence of their origin.
That may explain why they've not filed BK yet, too... as the BK process might not be as capable of disrupting those ongoing lawsuits that were filed prior to filing the BK as they'd find useful ?
Filing the BK... might give the lawsuits MORE teeth... while taking the issue of cash management out of the banks hands ? Sure doesn't seem likely that any legit BK judge would let them give all that stuff away that has been draining the cash... which is $ that was owed to employees that haven't been being paid properly ?
Makes me curious what they'd said about lawsuits in their SEC filings ? Were they just dismissing the lawsuit issues with some boilerplate about how they thought there was nothing to it, and they intended to vigorously defend, etc ?
Maybe they weren't honest about the problem with "buyers" who figured it out themselves... what the problems might be ?
I don't think you get 31 lawsuits filed against you, with a lot of them looking like they're addressing the same or similar issues, for no reason. Maybe the duplication is the need to file in different states ?
That Olin Mills has similar issues... suggests the "competition" is one that is being conducted largely at the employees expense.
Here's what I found with a quick search:
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/CPI-Portrait-Studio-Employees-Represented-Zimmerman-Reed-PLLP-File-Class-Action-Against-1296248.htm
http://www.legafi.com/lawsuits/news/571-olan-mills-class-action-settlement
http://legafi.com/lawsuits/news/519-cpi-portrait-studio-class-action-
This one says there are 31 "results":
http://www.law360.com/companies/cpi-corporation
And, here's one of them:
http://www.law360.com/cases/5062069df662aa1708000001
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020120921E59.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR
A while back the topic turned to "finding active lawsuits"...
I thought shareholder suits might provide more information than is being provided now...
What I found in looking... is WAY more employee lawsuits have been filed than shareholder suits... and for all the reasons in the various things being discussed here...
I think one of the reasons they've been slow to wrap things up is probably that "someone" will inherit those liabilities... and they're trying to pull the plug on them.
Most here would probably benefit from an open discussion of the employee suits that have been filed...
Free photo packages if you open a checking account ?
LOL!!!
"I really think the best we can hope for is Bank of America doing the right and ethical thing with their new play toy."
I know most of you aren't here looking for the investors perspective... but, the investors mantra in addressing an issue like that is: "hope is not an investment strategy".
There are not any winners here.
And, for shareholders, it's always a threshold issue...
CPIC has long since passed that tipping point, where the value of the equity is negative...
Amazing to me, even knowing how and why they can, that the banks continued pouring money into this bottomless pit of incompetence... without ever insisting on the company actually fixing anything.
They COULD have fixed it... and didn't ? Why ?
It is what it is.
The number of shares outstanding divides the value that exists by that number, which still leaves it being the fact in the value that matters, and not efforts made in pretending there is none... when the fact is that there IS a large value in place.
SRSR has the rocks. The rocks have value. That's what matters. The value of those rocks as priced in the market will change as the market changes, and as their ability to realize and convert that value changes.
Markets are inefficient in their pricing... at best... which is still not a reason to validate fraud in misrepresentation about the FACT of the value that exists.
What's a share of CBMM worth ?
http://www.metalbulletin.com/Article/2902429/China-consortium-buys-stake-in-Brazils-CBMM.html
http://www.chinamining.org/Investment/2011-09-02/1314944202d49229.html
What would a share be worth if they had the same number of shares outstanding as SRSR ? They're in production, and on a large scale... but, they recently sold 15% for $1.95 billion. And, since then, they've doubled the scale of their output ? So, what is that 15% stake worth today ? Assume it's worth twice as much ?
Round up, and look at it as if CBMM had a billion shares ? Divide by two to account for SRSR having only half... when they reach production ?
The deal they did at CBMM valued them then at $13 billion... now TWO YEARS LATER, they're worth maybe $26 billion with double the market as they'd had before... and, the market still has room to grow SIXTEEN TIMES LARGER ?
With a billion shares... CBMM would be worth $26 a share... up from $13 a share two years ago.
Of course, SRSR isn't there now... but, that's where they're heading... with a wide open field enabling growth for DECADES.
And, there's going to be room in the market for SIXTEEN MORE CBMM equivalents before you begin running into potential limits in demand growth... and that's still assuming that you don't add new producers, find any new uses, find ways to over-come existing limits, or see any increase in steel production... ever ?
LOL!!! The issue is... that once you develop Nemegosenda... there aren't any other comparable scale deposits left to develop... that are feasible to develop. Others will cost as much or more to develop, for less potential in return.
So, the question in valuation, HERE, isn't close to being a linear question of the number of shares outstanding, or the current share price imposing any limits... as some pessimists would prefer to pretend is true.
There are reasonable limits in TIMING... of course. Demand likely won't go from the present levels to 16X more... in a year or two... particularly when it isn't close to physically possible to generate the supply required for that to happen ? And, that's ONE of the issues in terms of TIMING... is that in properly planning the development effort to integrate with the market requirements in a way that optimizes the ROI in relevant time frames, while optimizing their competitive position over time... which has to happen.
And, what does that leave ? Where are competitors of the CBMM consortium members going to go in order to meet their own growing demand... if they don't want to improve the position of their competitors by subsidizing their competitors efforts in niobium... while assuming the supply risk competitors control of access imposes... and if they don't want to waste their investment $ by paying for short lived assets that will require additional investment to meet the need in replacing them soon ?
CBMM was 85% of the market... before they doubled their output over the last two years... and now, AFTER that doubling, niobium demand could still grow another 16 times from current capacity... and still not run into obstacles in relation to demand limits ?
Niobium use SAVES MONEY for the consumers using it... so that demand growth is hard wired... for decades. CBMM's ramping up their output recently... supports increasing niobium content in HSLA steel from 0.06% to 0.12 %... a long way from the 2% limit.
There isn't another single source out there that is CAPABLE of meeting that sort of ongoing demand growth... for long ?
And, "there isn't another... capable" is a specific use. CBMM isn't going to bring in new partners ? Other than Niostar's Nemegosenda deposit... there just isn't another deposit out there with a potential capacity large enough AND feasible enough to develop it quickly enough... that it CAN align with plans to produce large enough quantities to matter... in the near term, and beyond ?
Nemegosenda is the ONLY ONE that makes THAT KIND of sense.
The value in IAMGOLD's now less than 15% of market share is diluted by the fact that they're still going to be stuck using what they have, and using relatively expensive underground mining methods. They're not going away... but, neither are they stepping up to meet future demand growth. Others out there... have other factors in uncertainty that are proving to be obstacles.
Nemegosenda is the only one worthy of advancing.
And, with advantages others don't have, and without the risks others have, it IS advancing...
In the long term, the issue is... who will win the pole position in meeting growth in future market needs... as SOMEONE is going to have to meet the needs that the continued demand growth imposes.
As your post exemplifies... "the market" has been overly pessimistic about SRSR... WAY beyond what is reasonable.
"The market" isn't dealing with the FACTS... including, first, that niobium demand is growing... and will continue growing at a rapid pace... whatever happens in steel markets.
SRSR's competitors... CBMM in particular... have been caught in lying about a couple of things... even posturing they were "pessimistic" about niobium... while secretly working on plans to double their capacity... hoping to suppress market awareness, and hoping to forestall the development of competition...
I think all of those factors... are becoming irrelevant...
It is not at all inconceivable that Nemegosenda will be able to match CBMM's current output at some future point...
The questions left are ones like: "how soon can you be in production" ?
Only a fool would pretend that SRSR won't be worth $1 a share or more... at the point when they're moving rapidly toward competing with CBMM in meeting future demand growth.
Or, a shill for the competition...
..."and by the way, outlining an agreement is not the same thing as signing an agreement!"
That's only because real logic dictates that "agreements" and "documents" and the "signatures" on documents are different things...
But, agreements that have been reached, exist, whether or not they've been put into document form.
Agreements reached can and will be outlined in LOI documents, before the documents are signed.
And then, signing the documents outlining the agreements they contain, "makes" them exist... MORE... as the signatures give the agreements made a higher level of legal existence, force, and effect.
LOI's are agreements... which is the opposite of what you claimed.
The LOI SRSR has with China... is an agreement they did reach. Then, they put it into document form... and then, they did sign it... giving it legal existence, force, and effect.
They wouldn't ever have announced that they "HAVE MADE an agreement", if they didn't "make" it by signing it... giving it legal existence, force, and effect ?
It looks like all that's missing... are the necessary external approvals that are required to allow them to proceed with doing what they've ALREADY AGREED to do ?
The companies don't control that part, of course...
SRSR can't sign a contract with China, and expect that empowers them to tell the governments of Canada and China what to do, how to do it, or when to do it ? So, the agreement is conditional, as long as it requires those external permissions to be granted.
There's no reason to think they won't be granted, but, there's also no reason to think they'll be granted particularly quickly... just because the shareholders would prefer it.
When the various bureaucrats have done their work, and give them the necessary nods constituting permission, then, the agreement they've ALREADY MADE will have met the various conditions that it contains, showing they recognized the need for getting those approvals as a requirement.
And, when the conditions are met... when they have the approvals... then the agreement they ALREADY HAVE will take on additional meaning and significance, giving it additional force and effect as an agreement without limits in the issue of any of those unmet needs for approvals...
The external approvals, when they occur, will make the conditions go away, changing the agreement they ALREADY HAVE... from a conditional agreement, to an unconditional agreement ?
You're simply wrong in trying to claim they don't have a deal... when they do have a deal... only with conditions that they have acknowledged.
They've ALREADY MADE their deal...
Now we're just waiting, and for as long as that takes, for them to get the necessary external approvals, eliminating the obstacles in the conditions that prevent proceeding... until then.
We don't know how long that will take.
We do know that if it takes longer than the end of February for them to get whatever approvals they might need, that the exclusivity period in the current agreement will lapse... allowing SRSR to also consider other proposals, etc.
I don't think that's a very big deal...
My opinion is that they will probably close on the deal they have already negotiated...
But, that being in the nature of things, I think the timelines on which it is likely that things will be getting done in the effort seeking the necessary approvals... means "getting it done" isn't under the control of the companies, and thus isn't able to be controlled or dictated by the timelines in the agreements they've made.
So, while it is possible, I don't think that they'll get it done before the end of February. And, I don't think a delay occurring then... will be a problem, or anyone's fault... rather than typical, given "the nature of these things".
I think it's WAY more likely they'll get it done by the end of March, or mid April.
And, if that's how long it takes... I'll be perfectly fine with that...
Against my own fairly well considered opinion, I don't much value your opinion that "LOI's are not agreements",
And I also don't value, or for a minute believe, any of the "opposite land" functions of "logic" you're offering here, that violate the laws of logic and physics, alike.
Opinion... whether attached to a claim it is based in logic, or not, does not EVER change the physical reality of the values in the rocks...
Share prices... don't determine what's in the rocks, either.
"Logic" doesn't ever work... to make whatever outrageous crap people find it useful to say... be true.
Others have suggested that when the external obstacles that exist now (that are limiting their performance under the agreements they've made... and will until the obstacles have been eliminated)... that the share price might easily reach $1 or more, within a year or 18 months after that point.
I think that's pretty likely...
But, I also know that when there ARE extremes in error in market valuation (like that which exits here) that when those errors are suddenly made apparent... the market RARELY will tend to correct back from the error, to just the "right" price in linear fashion. Instead, the market OFTEN tends to significantly over-shoot on the upside in a correction... in similar fashion and in similar degree as it has over-extended a prior ERROR to an extreme, only in a trend in the opposite direction.
If SRSR is priced around $0.03 now, only because of efforts made in misrepresentation of the facts ? If the prices we see... are mostly a function of incorrect claims about risks faced ? If the price reflects "a mess of crap people made up" more than facts ? There will be a revaluation event when the market is forced to "fix" the errors in assumptions that have been imposed...
So, if after carefully considering it, I think SRSR really IS worth $0.35 or more right now... there's no way I'd sell as SRSR share for $0.35 with the market moving higher, when I KNOW for a FACT that the market will EASILY OVER-correct the prior errors just as much on the high side... and allow me to sell that $0.35 value for $0.70 or more... soon after awareness of the "error" and the extent of it, is realized in the market.
Given a share will probably be $1 or higher "soon" anyway... ?
I'd not see any reason to even consider selling one for less ?
Wash sales in automated trading will do that for you. Volume for volume sake... maybe beyond the usual in MM responsibilities ?
Looks like some one is still spending $ to create the illusion that there is actually a trade occurring here... when reality looks more like it is that there is not much of anyone who actually owns shares who is willing to sell any shares at the current prices. I think the trade is a lot thinner than it is made to look, at least up to $0.06 or $0.08. There seem to be no shorts out there now, who are stupid enough to enter the trade at the current level, either, faced with a still growing lack of real liquidity, which they'd need to expect would exist, to allow them an exit from the trade without being bloodied. Any new effort to take it down on volume will no doubt have holders scrambling for $ and then jumping all over it to add a few more to the pile with the benefit of others price subsidy.
Pair all of that with a count down in anticipation of "events" that is ongoing... ? And, pair it with an extremely obvious failure ongoing in the effort to "manage the message" in the market ? And, then, the charts show that the last "tactical" short trade apparently made here... in spite of the assurances you might assume were made about support for that trade... seems it did end, unexpectedly, and didn't end particularly well... for them ?
Shareholders 1, Flamers 0
I wonder why FINRA doesn't find it useful to report on the volume in previously unreported shorts that exist, that are only made apparent in the market when it is made obvious in the charts that they are being covered ? I think those few that have been able to be covered, recently, were lucky to get them out where they did.
The obvious effort in setting up for the similarly focused trade based on "the failure at the end of February"... has already failed... and that trade clearly isn't going to happen.
Anticipation is (properly) focused on mid-March or later...
Obviously, it's not "retail" who are generating the trades... or conducting the effort in misdirection, in the market, and in the charts ?
Personally, I don't think we're likely going to hear anything more from the company now, at least until mid-March...
My guess is that they'll either announce continued progress and another extension, around then... which result will give shareholders every reason they need to continue holding... or they will announce that they're ready to proceed with their previously announced plans, as already agreed... which is likely to generate enough movement in the market that you'll see buyers coming in, and some real trading happening, again... at a price sufficient to have that happen.
Still not unreasonable to expect there may be some minor news coming out about progress being made in China, in their effort dissecting "rocks," at some point, which is perhaps some potential for news that doesn't depend on or otherwise relate to other things... other than that news of that sort might still tend to disrupt prior efforts made in misrepresenting what that effort means in relation to other things.
At this point, I don't think there is anyone who is confused about the nature of the efforts made...
And, I don't think they have any real impact... in convincing anyone of anything... other than in the element of awareness that the effort exists.
And, I don't think anyone has much of a reason to care about that anymore, anyway...
Its a CHAPTER 7
It's going to be de-registered.
Skull and crossbones stuff.
Liabilities here ensure they're going to bury it deep.
The "potential" has more value... if it isn't the only value.
They've pretty well told us, a long time ago already, that this entire year is another complete write off... no chance of there being a reason to have interest here for another year... and, probably, another year after that before there's much real potential they'll actually move on... anything that matters.
There's not a point now in expecting the seasonal variation that tends to happen with drilling season... given they're taking a year off.
So, I think it's expected... given a choice between twisting in the wind, here, or putting money to work somewhere else... where it actually has a chance to work...
The waste of $ putting out "news" that the market already understood... ? LOL!!!
They need to do something with FECOF other than have it be an time wasting option on a project that isn't happening... if they want people to notice, or even care.
I think I might have mentioned that a time or two in the last few years...
"I believe the vicinity range can only be those areas within which a connection can be made."
I think the plain language of the patent makes it clear that is exactly what the patent intended... and that is exactly what it says in a technical reading, in view of the requirements in law for how it should be read.
It was written intended to apply in every situation where it was possible that it would... and it was written in a way that enabled (and required) exactly that in reading it... and that was done with a fair degree of precision in its use of language, too, leaving little doubt, if the effort made in reading it is properly considered.
The judge got it wrong.
The patent office got it EXACTLY right... with obvious skill and precision in their use of and understanding of the language used.
And, of course, the court has an unmet obligation to read it that way, too... as the patent office did in considering it and awarding it... while understanding that it WAS written as intended to apply in every situation where it was possible that it would... and that it was written in a way that enabled (and required) exactly that in the court's reading of it...
Clearly, there has been a failure that occurred... even though there doesn't appear to be any reason that any confusion should exist about the court's obligations in considering how they are supposed to read the patent... broadly... while noting its language is CORRECT in being as broad as it is, and defining what it does ?
And, that's all before you get to "redefining words".
My prior post noted "And, there isn't ANYTHING in telecom that will work... if you define a "range" as "a fixed point"... "
What we see in the product of the court... pairing the narrow misreading of what should be broad, with the specific failure in understanding the meanings of key words, is the opposite quality as what is apparent in the proper usage and interpretation of both the meaning inherent in the application of the form of the communication, in context, and the words used, properly defined, by the patent office.
The court clearly failed.
It does not appear to be accidental error, to me... rather than a well considered effort to deliver a specific result by making specific pairings in errors.
It APPEARS as if the courts' purpose was to ensure that '923 would not be allowed to work... first by adopting error in the courts view of how to read a patent, reading it in a way that intended to narrow it, instead of considering it in proper context... and then by selecting a fraudulent use of language that, in being adopted, would ensure that NOTHING COULD work, where that language was applied.
Trying to remember the last time I saw a Q stock where the financiers were forced by the bankruptcy court (?) to file amended forms 13 to "correct" prior filing information, including having them claiming, in the most recent amendments, to own VASTLY LESS in interest than their prior filings had claimed... while also correcting them to reflect they are in fact "control persons" ?
The change doesn't appear to be pointing toward any source of potential value...
Instead, it's pointing out responsibility ?
The company filed in October, saying "All of the Company's assets will be liquidated. The Company estimates that, after any exempt property is excluded and administrative expenses paid, there will be no funds available for distribution to unsecured creditors."
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1203957/000114420412058973/v327205_8k.htm
Curious if you've ever seen a BK stock that took THAT long to reflect a changed trading symbol ? Someone asleep at the switch ?
There is an obvious error in the construction, including that the error made is an obvious error in law, because as a matter of logic, and including in the logic of the law, words do have defined meanings that we depend upon, while we're rightly expecting some integrity in the uses made of them.
It isn't proper to randomly redefine the words used, in order to get the result you want.
There is a lack of integrity apparent in the current situation.
In the current instance, either the word "range" actually means "a range" as is consistent with both the commonly accepted meaning of the word, and the technical definitions of "range" that apply in the context where it is being used... or else the word "range" means and intends to describe "a fixed point"...
It is not possible that the word "range" means "range" in every use where it is applied... except in the 923 patent where it means "a fixed point".
If a "range" is "an array of numbers" in math, that allows movements within and between the values in the range... that's what it means in the '923 patent...
And, if a "range" is "a fixed point" in the '923 patent, then, that's what it means in all the other telecom patents, too.
And, there isn't ANYTHING in telecom that will work... if you define a "range" as "a fixed point"...
I doubt the court will want to accept the error that is being made in this instance. Not because I have any reason to have confidence in the courts doing the right thing as a matter of course... rather than doing what they can to deliver the result they want by adopting errors...
But, in this case, adopting and validating the particularly stupid error they have... is going to have MASSIVE impact in unintended consequences... if they don't act to nip it in the bud...
JMHO
I like that gold chart better than some of the others you've posted.
I think it correctly shows that the price of the gold USGIF is pretending to be mining, is probably going to continue in it's sideways holding pattern correction mode... for another quarter.
Probable things will become more interesting in late spring and early summer...
Regarding USGIF, I am as pessimistic as I can be about this company, given there is at best HUGE risk ? They've already proven it... and some of that risk has been realized, already?
Its called dilution. Or, "takings" by management. And there are many many other variables that could cause USGIF holders to lose all their money, given the management have been scamming holders with sketchy options deals, too, proving it isn't close to being "the very best among mining companies" which are risky enough by nature, without bad management making them worse. There is no assurance that even if USGIF mines more than before, that the share price will go up, or that shareholders will get more. You do have to compute a proper discount... for the shrinkage imposed in the wrongful transfers of value to management. And, what limits are there ? Hard to say.
If the price of silver does go up that doesn't mean the stock will go up at all. (I really don't expect it to of course. There just are not any guarantees, unfortunately, that management won't take all the value produced as it does.)
It's also untrue that "there is no risk at all in holding the precious metals, 'if done and protected correctly.' "
As far as the rest ?
LOL!!!
A truly remarkable post.
1a. "we are not aware of any government, at least in modern times, confiscating, or even threatening to confiscate, their citizens’ silver holdings."
and
1b. "It is worth pointing out though that the U.S. did also 'confiscate' silver a year after the gold confiscation, but this was ostensibly so it could be used for the minting of silver coins - not something which would seem likely nowadays, nor was the legislation quite as draconian as that for gold."
2. With "it being banned from being purchased, even if only in the U.S.A., imagine what that would do to demand for silver from those who believe in precious metals. Demand would be such that it would likely rapidly overrun supply and negate and reverse any of the silver trading shenanigans on COMEX."
Still trying to wrap my head around the idea that anyone would think it reasonable that having the overt threat of a pending government theft of private property, or having that threat being carried out... would naturally increase market demand for that form of property within the market that used to exist, thus overwhelming any price manipulation in that market with increased demand... correcting market pricing errors in a trade... that no longer exists.
You can see buried in it... the fundamental disagreement in our society now... between those who "believe in government" and think its power is all good and only good, even when it is stupid, or does bad or truly evil things... and those who believe, as the founders did (as other British subjects had, in the history before them) that the King and his government are at best a necessary evil, rather than anything divine, and not one that is really all THAT necessary, that we should tolerate any of their excesses.
The key REASON "they" won't confiscate physical silver... (if you don't look too closely at MF GLobal, etc.) is that "they" don't have to, when "they" can just counterfeit it instead... and steal all the value from you, by itself, instead of needing to steal the physical shell that contains it.
They ARE doing that now...
So, the discussion of the probability of theft occurring, ignoring the form of theft that IS occurring or likely to occur, is really only an issue of degree ?
The reason they MIGHT want to confiscate physical silver in the future... is that they may "have to", at some future point when the ongoing effort enabling theft by counterfeiting... fails.
So, a couple of the arguments are EXACTLY backwards...
If there is a delivery failure on the COMEX... the fiction that SLV et al can deliver the value represented by their scrip... vanishes. Their paper and the promises they represent, will then become RECOGNIZED as being worthless.
When the market fails... the market ceases to exist, if price cannot bridge a difference in risk... which happens because no one will be able to trust any of the market participants to hold anything for them... to enable it in being traded.
Those holding physical then (including in the banks vaults)... will shrug their shoulders, and note, "the market in promises has failed" and they will probably not see that failure as a reason to want to honor their own past promises to others... rather than see the immolation of the market in paper promises as a reason to claim to still own themselves what they'd lied about selling to others as a backing for their promises ? They can PLAN for that failure... knowing they can buy the promises back for nothing... after they make them worth nothing ? Maybe JPM is comfortable being as short as they can be... because they know that when the market itself goes away... so does their obligation to deliver on promises made in context of that market ? Why would they believe the risks they own... are not realizable ?
That market failure we're discussing will not make REAL market prices go down. But, it will mean there isn't a functional market... and, if you take it as a given the market operation we have is a fraud operating while intending to suppress prices... then, you'd guess, the REAL prices for REAL things (and not promises of them) will skyrocket when the fraud enabling the surplus in supply composed of artificial liquidity collapses. But, that market that did exist, won't exist to enable you to trade, at that point ?
As long as the fraud continues and the market doesn't fail... there's no reason for them to even consider confiscation ?
But, after the market HAS failed... the drivers being masked now, may suddenly emerge... and there's no telling what the blood thirsty pirates will do, if and when they're caught having lent out 30 pieces of silver... that they don't really own.
When they do need to own what they don't... what will they do ?
History isn't overly relevant... if its being used to claim people won't take what they don't have, while justifying their thefts as "necessary"... and "unanticipated, but unavoidable"... etc.
They won't steal your silver... if there's not a benefit in it ?
They won't... if the situation hasn't generated a "need" ?
But, things do change...
Far better to pay attention to the situation that DOES exist, and the balances in the errors... understanding "change happens" ?
It is still more reasonable than making other assumptions without proper reason, to note that they won't steal... what they can't.
"Does the patent negate a signal strength reading? "
Yes, it does... in the sense of "including it." I'd say the 923 claims render "use of signal strength" as an "alternative" in obtaining the condition that 923 describes... obvious.
Signal strength is just a different method of defining the vicinity range function. And, 923 said "vicinity range" without saying how you determined it... for that very reason ? The 923 obviously didn't say "determined by measuring a fixed distance with a ruler" ? But, they're making it up that that is what it says, instead of being honest about what it does say.
I do think the ruling made is dishonest. It clearly is in the language... and in that it requires claiming the proper uses of words do make them mean things they don't mean.
Also worth noting, so does the incorrect reading of the languagee that they're seeking, also "negate" the use of signal strength in a more fundamental way, by destroying the logic of math it depends on, and its functions, by redefining both common and technical terms in ways that breaks their meaning... and breaks damn near everything depending on them.
The first reason, restated, is... they ARE switching within the vicinity range the seminal 923 patent describes... so 923 applies to all switching within that range being described, no matter "what else" you tack on as bells and whistles.
If you patent "flying"... adding wheels to an airplane that the seminal "flying" patent describes, might also be patentable... but, patenting the addition of those wheels doesn't somehow make "flying" not patent-able unless you use wheels... thus obviating the flying patent, and making the patent for wheels substitute for the flying patent ?
If airplanes "move within a vicinity range" (which they do as a function of limits in their fuel capacity... just as 923 envisioned limits within ranges defined for the devices) and they similarly redefine "range" to mean "a fixed point in space"... ?
LOL!!! So, airplanes can't "fly around in a range" but can only fly at "a fixed point in space" ?
You can see both how stupid the current construction is, and how much damage it is likely to do if it were sustained ?
An airplane that moves outside its vicinity range... runs out of fuel, and falls out of the sky... and there isn't a dynamic way to change that absolute range limit and the functions that occur when exceeding it without substantially altering the device ? You can, of course, adopt policies that tell pilots to land and refuel before they fall out of the sky ? An 923 device that moves outside the "vicinity range" defined for it... doesn't crash and burn. It just executes a switch. And the variable in "policy" you tell the pilot to apply... applies in 923 also. Vicinity range can be variably defined. The "absolute limits of function in the system at a limit" are an instance, that proves the function of limits, without meaning its the only instance possible, and the only limit possible to set, is that fixed at the extreme ?
And then, it doesn't really matter HOW ELSE they are using distance (as they are in measuring signal strength) when they are ALREADY doing what the 923 describes, while also doing something in addition to meeting the requirements of the patent ?
They could file a "refinement" if they wanted...
But, if the logic being applied now is sustained, you can't patent anything in telecom... that depends on any change occurring... because it wrongly redefines "a range of numbers" as "an fixed integer". So, then, how can you "switch based on change in signal strength" when nothing is allowed to change ? You can't do math describing ANY variation... when "a range of values" which tolerates variation, is redefined to mean "a fixed integer value" that doesn't ?
The logic in terms of the math is REALLY damning.
The decision... is beyond "bad".
Language that redefines "a range" into what they are, if it is sustained, also requires converting "any array of numbers" into "a single fixed digit" so that nothing dynamic can occur, ever again.
Obviously, if you can't move around within a range, and remain within the range... until some (other variable) condition is met in a single instance... then, you can't claim you CAN move in the exact same way, until some (other DIFFERENT variable) condition is met in a range of instances... as if you CAN move around in a range that is defined using signal strength, but CAN'T move around in a range if the instance in the range isn't defined by signal strength ?
It's totally nonsensical... and the precedent would be massively destructive... as it requires re-defining the basic operations of MATH as working... in a way that is untrue...
"Incorrect in its application of logic"... is being kind.
Reverse the REQUIREMENTS in operation of the logic... to make the real degrees of freedom in movement be limited by the criteria being set... and you see HOW screwed up that is... as application of the current definition basically claims "its not possible to move within a range that exists"... which it accomplishes by the fraud of redefining "range" to mean "a fixed integer" (unless you use signal strength to determine the range?) So, people holding a 923 device would be physically unable to move in space ? But, people holding a "signal strength" device would be able to move around just fine ? The difference in fact in physical reality proves the error... and the nature of the error.
It's TOTAL absolute BS...
And, I don't think its possible to make that sort of an error in logic, without knowing and intending the error... which means the judge "ignored the facts and the operation of basic logic, to give T-Mobile a 'win' in the case, no matter how flawed the decision"
IMO
Of course, I don't expect the error to go un-noted.
And, if you look at it that way, the judge gave them what they wanted... and, in doing so, perhaps threw them under the bus they asked to be run over by.
Seems more likely there's also concern about "mistakes" in ops plans, not just questions about where the money is going:
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=56178611&symbol=TSX:LSG
If it were an minor thing and an LSG internal issue only, you'd probably see it having the impact that is apparent in the weekly charts... only on LSG. Instead, you also see AUQ moving lower in parallel, over the last four weeks, right along with LSG...
AUQ still the better pick of the two, IMO, given insulation of the holding from the share dilution risks being realized in LSG... but, AUQ clearly is still not going to be fully insulated from problems in the project management being induced by LSG ?
Is there a "new issue" lurking out there, that LSG is going to have to buy its way out of... with the recent news still being only the leading edge of it ? Or, is the news out there, already, as a known among the insiders, the news published being only the "final act" in a long running play they've kept quiet, until now ? You still can't tell, from the PR, what the real story is about, much less follow the story line.
Might be worth paying closer attention here, for a while... to see what starts coming out, when explanations are demanded.
"A letter of "intent" by no way constitutes an agreement."
"A letter of intent... is a document outlining an agreement..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_intent
"And logic tells me if the report were accurate, SRSR's PPS would not be where it is"
LOL!!
Let's dissect your "logic".
It requires that MARKET PRICE determines truth (or not) in reports.
So, if I decided to short 400 million shares (which I might do, even if I'm unaware of the property existing, much less the report about the properly existing)... it makes the report not true, and if instead I go long 400 million shares (perhaps because I think one of the recent Shining Tree property acquisitions contains lots and lots of gold)... it changes the report, written many years prior, in a way that makes the report true ?
Can you explain how that works ?
My own opinion... is that market pricing has virtually nothing to do with logic.
I don't think people are particularly good judges of value... and markets reflect people's ill-informed choices, not their (infallible use of) logic.
But, your claims about "logic" go way beyond the (obviously wrong) expectation that markets are efficient... to claim that people's guesses about future prices... actually alter physical reality... and even ignores the physics in the irreversibility of time, to make that happen ?
Hey. That's great.
That means that all we have to do to make the report BE true... is believe it.
I think the obstacles remaining are not logistics, but permits. I think they're basically ready to go, but still need three green lights. One I posted about recently, which is the permit from the Forest Service to use the roads to haul ores. One is a water discharge permit. And, those two are probably precedent to the award of the final operating permit. They received the DRAFT operating permit last fall... and need to get the conditional aspect of that resolved... and then they'll have the green light. They are projecting that will happen by mid year.
Some of what you are missing is that this is Montana... and it seems that "the market" just doesn't believe it, yet, that Montana has changed anything that matters re their opinion and their rules that will enable mining operations to get permitted and mine. There is a "show me proofs" attitude being applied against the fact you can see in the change that HAS occurred. But, it's true... things HAVE changed... and, one of the impacts of the market not trusting that what's true is true, is a price differential in that distrust, which has made all of the "small mine" operations in Montana that ARE proceeding to mining... undervalued. I'd include in that... that you can see a number of related things others are ignoring... like the environmentalists dropping their lawsuit against RVM... ?
I don't think you take that to mean all the risk is gone, or that the environmentalists have surrendered. But, they are going to have to do a much better job than in the past, of picking their battles, in Montana, because they HAVE lost on one element of public awareness, meaning they're not going to be able to shut everything down through endless purposeful legal obstruction that intends to deny others their rights more than anything else.
So, do the math yourself on valuation of their 50% interest in an operation doing 300 tons per day (which is 25% low), 300 days per year (about right), with an average content of 0.25 ounces per ton (which may be 25% low, or more), and using $1200 per ounce as the price of gold, to discount something per ton of the operating costs...
From that, subtract time, given that they are "carried" to production... and the operator has already spent $25 million or more getting it to where they are. It will take them maybe 138 days of production to pay off the cost of being carried... so, around six months...
They already had a million or so in the bank, just raised a bit more, and have another million and a half in an obligation due (to them) that should be coming in soon...
I don't think they're going to need to look for money again before the start of production begins providing it to them... even if there are some additional delays in permitting, beyond what they've been considering as likely...
You are correct, IMO, that the discount apparent in the price isn't looking like it is rationally discounting the nature of the risks at this point. So, either we're overlooking something, even while considering the value ONLY of Butte Highlands, and not valuing the Nevada holdings at all, or it isn't us who are doing the overlooking.
Who should I trust more... my own DD... or the market ? LOL!!!