Surething1111, LBE vs ISMSurething1111,
Nice to see you have arrived here. Not enough action on the ISM BB as the three stooges banter about nothing. You know Surething1111, this is the LBE BB, and we discuss LBE issues here. But, to quickly and briefly respond, and I will draw a comparison between Miller and Nash to make it somewhat legitimate to post this discussion here, these two to me how always been the "tortoise" and the "hare". The "hare" adopts the aggressive approach where the "tortoise" adopts the conservative approach. The result of this approach has proven to be toxic for LBE and it's pre-JJ shareholders. LBE is debt ridden, ISM is debt free. LBE has had massive share dilution, with the potential of further dilution more than 2 times the dilution to date, ISM through the NCIB has seen their float of issued shares actually drop. As a result of the share dilution the future potential of LBE is extremely limited as whatever is left after company operations LBE must split it 168,000,000 ways (354,000,000 ways if the "preferred" shares are exercised), whereas ISM has to split it 70,000,000 ways. LBE, to fund it's operations has continued to increase its debt load and simply puts it on the LBE tab at 8% per annum, ISM services more than 50% of the services required through company stock and conserves it's capital. You see Surething1111, cash is king, debt is toxic. ISM is structured as a troll that is engaged in exploration and when opportunity arises is spun off as a separate entity as not to risk ISM or its shareholders. This is an example of mitigating risk. LBE, however, did nothing to mitigate risk and consequently ran the company into the wall resulting in the share prices going to 4 cents and it ceased trading until the new Chinese masters arrived. Nash, in his position as CEO, should have never permitted this to happen. The end result: lost control of the company to JJ, massive dilution to shareholders, and a predatory partnership that continues to siphon LBE resources ($1,650,000 per year just to service the "preferred" shares) out of the company leaving less and less for LBE minority shareholders, with only 5 years of LOM left. ISM, however, cruised through the downturn, and continues its conservative exploration activities without any of the issues facing LBE -- $26,000,000 in liquid, or near liquid, assets where the $6,000,000 loan is generating income at "prime + 4%", or 7% for a total of $420,000 per year, and other monies were invested in Canadian banks during the downturn for a great ride. All ISM properties are also owned and debt free, again because of the conservative approach. This implies that these assets can too be liquidated should the need ever arise. Lastly, LBE is a "one trick pony" as it is a "wanna-be mid-tier" Nickel mining company with minor emphasis on trace AU,Pd,Pt whereas ISM's exploration span a wide variety of mined materials: NI,AU,AG,MoS2,Rare Earth Minerals, etc. Surething1111, they call this diversification with is another approach to mitigating risk. Should demand collapse in one market you can concentrate on another market. Certainly, these are two very different approaches to managing a company but it seems to me that the "hare" got snared and was done like dinner along with the LBE minority shareholders. ISM, however, continues on in it's exploration activities like the conservative troll that it is with none of the LBE issues hanging over it or its shareholders, but it does take longer for results.
Surething1111, you really need to look at the big picture. It will be interesting to see what additional debt LBE had to take on to unload Nash. Time will tell. LBE minority shareholders are certainly in for an interesting ride.
I am posting this on both the LBE and ISM BB as this discussion pertains to both companies, but now that Nash is gone this discussion belongs on the ISM board.