Not that impressive, but I have been in this thing since Hennis was CEO and I have done my DD. Maybe that gives me a more informed perspective and therefore an opinion satisfactory to myself.
Just one of the examples that helped form this opinion was my second trip to Silveton when I took the drive up to Hennis' Gold King. The PR's had listed the mine as a customer; however, what surprised me was the well maintained shape of the shop buildings at the mine. The county had recently landscaped the the whole area where these buildings sit, because of the county road intersection there - the land was freshly graded and well sloped, buildings freshly painted, all equipment and parts on the ground well organized, concrete pads swept and bright; impressive. What caused me pause was the sign on the main shop building - a very clean, new looking CGFI sign with letterhead. What the hell? The company didn't own this mine and where did the money come from to make things look this way? In contrast, other than the house that sits at the mill, (which Hennis spent shareholder dollars to have painted), the POW looked run down with weeds surrounding the buildings, sign faded and weather beaten. Rust and neglect.
Concerned me enough to go back to the motel and look up the Q's again on slow wifi. Could find no rhyme nor reason for Hennis to spend CGFI dollars on a non-CGFI asset. Of course, Hennis was not CEO at this time, but it was apparent the money at the mine had been spent while he was. What was he thinking spending shareholder dollars on a non-company asset, even if it was speculative? The fact that this property was personally owned by another of his non-public companies made the term "conflict of interest" an understatement.
This issue caused a lot of confusion for other shareholders that made the DD trip to Silverton. There were more than a couple that went to the mine instead of the mill, thinking that was company property. Who's to blame them? The sign was there. Think about it, taking the time and expense to make the DD trip to a remote location - and never actually seeing company assets.
I believe I tried contacting the company about this issue, but never received a response. In hindsight, the Hennis legal BS made response impossible. This is bared out in the Q's - hundreds of thousands in legal spent in regards to Hennis. Shareholder dollars spent and wasted on the decisions of a prior CEO and his "no money down" mentality.
I look at the stock compensation package of Guyer and the late Lee Rice as being pretty fair to shareholders. They didn't realize any gain until the stock sold. They didn't sell much. Rice's fingers are probably still clutching his shares - he was literally fighting for the company on his death bed. I don't care what anyone says about Rice, he wrote book on mining in Colorado, had integrity and tenacity - spent the last years of his life working for the company and shareholders for less than minimum wage. He didn't say much; talk is cheap and he put money on the line - his own name and his own money.
Comparing Hennis and Rice? A study in contrast - no doubt about it. Hardly off base.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
