RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: flip t We were discussing the newsletter, so I don't think it's reasonable for you to justify the article by pointing to your other writings on Sandstorm. It seems it should stand on its own. But anyway, I took a quick look at your other writings.
I still see you saying there that "Royal Coal was a good decision with a poor outcome" and that Nolan had achieved victory in defeat by getting the huge tax loss carryforward that was worth more than Royal Coal as a working company.
Maybe in 2022 when we can actually use the tax loss carryforward I'll feel differently, but do you remember how Sandstorm was originally pitched (you mention in your original writeup)?
Guarantees! When Sandstorm invests in a POS like Royal Coal, it's not like you or me buying some penny stock. Because Sandstorm has these iron-clad guarantees. If we loan them $20 million, they must pay us that $20 million back within five years at a minimum or we'll nail them to the wall.
That was the whole pitch. Much safer than you or I buying a bunch of penny stocks. The safest way you could possibly invest in the resources space!
But when I look at the May 2013 investor presentation (if I'm not mistaken), only two of the original six streems are still on the graph. Does that mean we got all our money back on the four deals that went bust?
I guess putting out a buy recommendation in a newsletter, you have to be something of a shill (if you're not enthused, why should anybody else be), but ... have we not seen a critical collapse of the original model? Are you so sure that all the lessons have really been absorbed (for instance, what is up with the Mongolia deal?).
Because at this juncture, the next mistake is fatal ...