And there you have it...
The reason you can't trade shares... is they've been too busy with their PRIMARY focus on getting all their STOCK OPTIONS lined up... so they can take even MORE of the company away from you.
New filing on SEDAR today, for U.S. Silver & Gold, announcing the new plan for STOCK OPTIONS to reward them for the FINE job they're doing. Interestingly, its dated August 13... the SAME DATE as they announced "the business combination proceeded"...
I also noted, in looking at the Canadian filings on SEDAR for U.S. Silver... that in the discussion of the events, they FAILED TO EVER MENTION that the U.S. listed shares even existed, or that there were any plans for de-listing them ?
NOT MENTIONING in the Canadian filings that they were going to de-list the U.S. shares... and had no viable plan for re-listing them... seems a pretty significant oversight. A MASSIVE new risk and liability seems it has been created in USSIF (or, whatever) in the result.
Looking like Sprott et al = bankster pirate crew ?
Go figure.
The closer I look at this, the more dead fish aroma I'm smelling.
I DO NOT TRUST their numbers count in the voting...
U.S. based shareholders appear to have been grossly wronged by the management's self dealing and flagrant incompetence... just given the loss of the U.S. listing, apparently through nothing but sheer incompetence, and, although the only obvious alternative is vastly worse... sheer incompetence is plenty bad enough as a source of damages.
Looks to me like time for shareholders to start talking to their lawyers...
They "did the deal" on August 13... and only on August 16 did they release a new NI43-101 report, which they'd been sitting on since back in April ? And, what that report shows is A LOT LESS VALUE and FAR MORE in COST and RISK... than had been previously advertised by management as the "value" inherent in the Drummlummon ?
What they appear to show is that in a fair valuation, the RX Gold prospect wasn't even worth USSIF's cash... much less 1/3 of the company...
Instead of ores with "7 ounces per ton"... we see... 0.3 ounces per ton on the high end... significantly less even than the historic grades of .5 ounces per ton. And, we also see that they're many millions of dollars away from actually owning all the properties ? The NI report outlines LESS THAN 100K OUNCES in total... measured, indicated and inferred... and says basically that the professional geologists find it is "worth exploring" it... and that's about it. It is NOT an impressive NI report... mostly constituting a verbatim regurgitation of company PR and computer products based on accepting company inputs. Where they found there were issues in data... they simply corrected the data to what the company said it was... and, the company even withheld some data sets they did have from consideration ?
The integrity of the data is suspect... its quality clearly being limited by the obvious lack of proper independent verification of the data being used in generating computer products. That is mentioned, too... only to be dismissed with the caveat that a computer validation technique would be applied as a "check" of data integrity in lieu of proper independent verification.
However, using suspect data in a statistical self check of the same data... is an clearly invalid process. GIGO applies.
The utility of the report is clearly limited, too, by its failure to be more exacting in reporting, to the limit that its not really possible, from reading the report, to validate that it did comply with the requirements of the NI standards.
They provide a suggestion to spend more $ to do more work in exploration... but, the report also says "Based on the 2011 test mining and exploration, 500 tons/d is expected to be the target mine production rate for the life of mine (LOM)."
Hmmm.
Then, they've done "test mining" for a while... and the yield in actual production appears to provide a valid enough "check" of the numbers in the resource estimates... showing them to be somewhat on the high side... with the highest numbers in practice in operation reaching only the lower range of the numbers in the estimates ?
I have more than a few other issues with the NI report, too... although it reports so little in the result, in fact, that its hardly worth the effort in quibbling about the numbers in what it does report, given they're so... self limiting... anyway.
It looks to me like it will take all the cash USSIF has... AND MUCH MORE... just to get this gold property close to being "what was advertised" when they were flogging the "benefits" of the deal... and that still doesn't appear to be enough to justify the deal that was done.
I think it is clear enough that the "deal" was misrepresented prior to the vote... and that shareholders were NOT properly informed... including that they clearly WITHHELD information the company DID HAVE... which was not made available until AFTER the vote was "counted"... ?
Unconscionable duplicity... ?
As bad as the HL offer was... it looks like the USSIF management violated their basic obligations to shareholders in recommending a vote against the HL deal... because they KNEW the deal being offered instead was an clearly inferior proposal.
Bottom line in my due diligence...
1. Can you trust management ?
Sadly, the answer here appears it has now become a resounding NO... with that NO only solidifying over time, with a closer look at the facts, after the fact... so, that requires I change my prior view of this as a holding from a "strong long term hold"... to a strong SELL for USSIF, or USGIF... whatever... you know, when/if you can sell it.
I'll be looking for better opportunities where there is BETTER MANAGEMENT... that defined as MANAGEMENT YOU CAN TRUST. Really, it just doesn't ever MATTER what's in the rocks... if they're just going to steal it from you anyway.
Then, maybe I'll consider trading USxxx as I would any other POS stock... if it resumes trading... when the charts say it's at a bottom... and, then, only if/when it appears there is a lower than current probability of being blindsided by management's self dealing, as shareholders here have been experiencing, recently.
Maybe wait for the lawsuits to settle out first ?
I'll set a first basic target down around $1.35... which merely discounts the share price for the recent reduction in value being imposed here... given the portion of value that was ALREADY just taken away by management, for themselves, in this deal... as that portion is simply no longer available as value relevant for shareholders. That risk is still an open ended risk, too... as yesterday's SEDAR filing re the OPTIONS makes very clear.
Layer in the obvious requirement they'll have... for more $... and you can expect an accelerating pace in dilution coming in tow soon enough... ?
Anyone want to start a pool based on how soon we'll see that ?
AI
.JPG)
