RE: Millright [gotstones]stones,
The information given was that the PDAC was not so lacklustre in LBE's case. It was the interest stirred up there that indicated a debt issue would be marketable, at an amount in excess of the program LBE was looking at. In hindsight, even with good numbers from Q4, it might be more difficult getting the ball rolling now [Bear Stearns, etc] than it was then. Personally, I have the idea that an acquisition is in the wind, and if so, it is often not prudent to risk delays that might upset the deal. Just speculation of course, but I'm willing to accept the decsion made by LBE and their advisors.
On the subject of the profitable fourth quarter, I don't think there's general consensus that it will be profitable. I haven't seen many [if any] that agree with my forecast - and many have disagreed with me. As I said when I first made reference to profitability - I could end up eating crow. I really have no more idea than anyone else on profitability, I'm in the minority, and I admit that my bravado was more to aggravate others than belief in a lead pipe cinch. The fact that it was even within the realm of possibility at this point is impressive to me. At that level of capacity, it wouldn't take much to tip the scales the other way. LBE had a placement in that quarter, and there are costs there that could eat up some production profits. There are any number of things that I did not foresee, that could result in a loss. But all that would do is cause a small frenzy here as all my foes scrambled to point out how little I know, or claim proof that I am a paid promoter. But I don't think Salman or the potential note investors would be concerned with that quarter. They are looking at the term of the debt, and have obviously been satisfied by future repayment ability, viability and prospects for warrant profits.
On your point about giving ISM's CEO time to complete his business plan, I think there's some points to consider. Contrary to the LBE CEO, I am not aware of the timelines involved in ISM's business plan - if they were announced, I missed the announcement. So my criticism may not be that his announced goal was reachable by now, and hasn't been reached. My criticism is that the possibilities have been so over-stated in an effort to promote the share price, as to constitute misleading and deceptive promotion - to the detriment of ordinary investors and the benefit of a selected few [including insiders]. The company has done nothing to discourage the misconceptions, and there is fairly direct evidence that they have encouraged it. I'm not so naive or impractical to deny that some promotion is necessary to attract speculative risk money to the company - but some of the goings on indicate that it is not just the company that has benefitted. The type of hustle that I am hinting at, has given the industry a bad name and hurts those entrepreneurs who have more acceptable motives - but must rely on the same risk capital market. That's why I don't buy the line - what's good for one is good for all in the Shaw Dome. Nickel discoveries by one, might put others in a better light; but there aren't many LBE supporters who believe that the antics of ISM put anyone else in a good light. As well as being critical of the "Howe Street Shuffle" related to ISM, I have been critical of certain decisions, the free use of compensation options to management and also to promotion firms for questionable need, etc. I also think the lack of communication to shareholders is a disgrace, and shows a lack of concern that raises questions as to ethics and character. How can management that compensates PR firms so generously, be so lacking in communication to shareholders?. These criticisms are not something that are subject to retraction if the business plan is ever achieved - so they are valid criticism at any time.