Sarissa Resources Inc (SRSR)

[downsideup]

"It is worth what someone is willing to pay for it."

Actually, that is not close to being true. It never has been true, and never will be true. People sell stuff for much less than it is worth ALL THE TIME. I depend on that FACT in finding it useful to spend time seeking out wildly "undervalued" issues. And people also pay to buy stuff for way MORE than it is worth, or way more than they need to pay, just as often. Plenty of proof here, it seems, given some of those here who thought SRSR was a huge value and a screaming buy at $0.20, that now COMPLAIN about being able to buy a greatly IMPROVED value for much LESS ?

Fact is most people are wildly irrational about price... and tend to be really bad at properly valuing things, and equally as bad at properly pricing them...

Price is price, not value. Value is value, not price. The rest is "market function"... so the ONLY thing that matters re price really is the "willingness factor" on which all transactions depend... as transactions require "willing" buyers and sellers, not "smart" buyers and sellers, or "informed" buyers and sellers, etc.

And that, of course, is why IHub exists... as an adjunct to the market function that enables "discussion"... with some seeking information, and others seeking to provide it... all with minimal filtering that requires "valuing" all opinions equally ? That lack of filters requires investors have or develop some judgment... since not all opinions ARE equal in value, even though all the opinions you find here will cost you the same, at least up until you do actually "buy" them ?

What you see in SRSR right now really appears mostly to be a large mass of HOLDERS who are not in the least bit interested in selling shares, certainly not many "willing" sellers at anything near the current price. No volume at the "market" price... means no agreement exists between willing buyers and willing sellers at that price. Volume today was less than 1/10th of 1% of the outstanding shares ? No "willing" sellers anywhere ? Maybe a couple of "clueless" sellers... maybe a couple selling due to changed interest in being in the market, etc., or, maybe no selling at all... only "activity" from market makers trying to sustain the appearance of a trade in which there are no willing sellers ?

Price is not value, value is not price...

So, as for recent claims that SRSR has met "impenetrable resistance" recently while trading at a price around $0.03... on a day with a minor uptick on light volume, trading during a period when the short term volume is trending down below 25% of "normal" ? Sorry, not buying that lunker re the "resistance".

As far as the rest... it has been true here for well over a year that "pink sheet stock investors" are NOT the target audience for the many things that SRSR is doing now while continuing to develop their opportunities, and they are not the targets being addressed with ongoing efforts in those things that the company is willing to sell, which generally does not include "shares" now... so, as far as "market pricing" of things that are relevant here... given the current market dynamics ? I think the value of the properties that are being addressed by company efforts to market the properties, including effort obviously focused in venues other than the pinks... is far more relevant to investors than is the price of shares now.

Dahlman Rose was apparently not hired in order to advise SRSR on investor relations... rather than for advising them on other things. Might be more useful in valuing SRSR to focus on facts, and on what THEY are focused on... more than on what some here will choose to focus on ?

I could be biased somewhat, today, by having noted that one of my past "value based" penny stocks, a pick that I'd made a while back... spiked up over $19 in trading over the last week... so, given that, I'll still tend to value my own analysis of relative "value" a WHOLE lot more than I will tend to value others obvious errors in analysis of price relative to value.

"Shalom" writes: "In my humble opinion, if sarissa had info that would increase share price: why not release as much as possible?"

Here's your answer: http://www.bcsc.bc.ca/release.aspx?id=12328
Read the rules... and then, you tell us what you are expecting, and what "as much as possible" includes that is different ?

Web: I agree it is likely that any 3-D IP work done likely will have done quite a lot to help refine their model of the Hawke Zone, and otherwise I think you're asking the right sort of questions about that. I think it is another instance in which you can't really develop any meaningful answers to those questions without actually having access to the data... as, IF the data show there is a solid, statistically relevant correlation between "this" and "that", and if there are solid reasons in the science that suggest the geology should have rationally connected relationships apparent between the correlations... then... the analysis of the science and the data are the proof. Hard to guess about it without knowing both "what the data are", and without knowing "what the data mean" in the context in which they are being analyzed. If the data were to correlate within X% of particular assay values, or ranges of assay values within some determinable factor in resolution... how useful would that be ? Hmmm.

It still doesn't seem particularly rational to me to expect that they'd have bothered with spending $ doing a 3-D IP study while intending to limit the effort to looking only at the Hawke Zone... particularly when the timing seems it likely correlates pretty well with what we KNOW they were doing in drilling the sort of holes that would be required to be there, open, in order to enable them to do the work...

When did they do the work ? What was it, do you suppose, that was the BASIS on which they shifted the tone and focus of their discussion with investors, from considering the values being defined in the Hawke Zone, to talking about a 13.9 kilometer circumference that would need to be explored ? What happened, back then, that gave them that new ability to define those limits, that they'd not had before ?

Moving along to other subjects:

I don't think there is really anything "new" being revealed in the creeping awareness about SRSR having done the IP study... other than the obvious in the correction of those who were in error while expecting the company was 1. not doing anything, and 2. not saying anything about not doing anything... who are now proved to have been wrong about BOTH of those things...

That you don't make the effort to try to understand what the company is saying when they speak... doesn't actually mean they're not saying anything that matters when they do.

SRSR has said EXACTLY what they've been planning on doing at Nemegosenda over the last two years... and they've been saying EXACTLY what the results of the efforts they've made have shown them... and if you can't connect the dots between those things... to figure out that what they're saying means they've been doing exactly what they said they would ? They aren't responsible for your paranoid misinterpretations of what they say... and they have no "obligation" to reveal more than they should while doing the work that needs doing before they CAN make full a public disclosure in accordance with the rules.

If you don't KNOW what the rules are ???

http://www.bcsc.bc.ca/release.aspx?id=12328

Then, you're probably not qualified to comment on any of that bit re what they should disclose and what they should not, or what they should disclose... when ? Given that NO ONE really knew what the rules were, or what they were going to be, until the recent publication of the new rules ? Clearly, they've had to be "careful" in disclosure while not knowing what the rules would be ? Figure out "the rest" of what that means for yourself ?

Then, if you ALSO note that the Chance report was written to be compliant with the form of the NEW 43-101 rules, not the "old" rules... that should also inform you about much that matters.

Why did that prior 43-101 report not even appear to "try" to define "resources" or "reserves" ? Looking beyond the obvious in what the report itself concludes, and the obvious in what it says about that... and the reason for its creation... and the context in which its creation was required ? That report COULDN'T do that... because (HELLO ?) the form it followed, and the RULES under which it was written, WEREN'T OPERABLE YET...

I take all of that to mean that we should see some pretty interesting things happening over the next few months...

Perhaps we'll see a few more bits of news released re their "progress" in implementing some of the "plans" they've outlined over the next month or two ?

Perhaps we'll see a few tidbits that will help "refine" our still limited view of what it is, exactly, that they have planned ?

But, still... what we should expect is that, whatever the timing of the execution steps in preparation, and whatever those steps are... there is a clock ticking down moving us toward that point where the implementation of the new 43-101 rules occurs... and whatever the game is that is afoot here now... that game doesn't BEGIN until that NEW game clock STARTS.

I think SRSR will likely have a couple of useful things to say when they ARE finally allowed to speak... pairing a new 43-101 with other public disclosure... some of which is pretty likely to address the "price" and "value" issues here in a fairly definitive fashion.