RE:RE:Pretium - Uses another firm for updated feasibility Roller.... I have stated what I like to see in a report. The general public was promised by FC that the most recent 43-101 that took significant time to be published would contain all the information needed for the investing public to decide the viability of the resource. I have only stated a partial list of the issues that I saw in the report. I have no doubt that those same issues are in part why brokerage firms do not follow this stock.
Seriously, based on the I & I numbers, this company should get some love at some level from the analyst. I would think you as a share holder ( a long as I understand) would want to know why Share price has fallen off (beyond the usual market issues). I see the press releases on these drill holes and they lack the information needed for an investor to decide if they are good or not. I would think you as an investor would want the company to help keep the share price decent (especially if they need to do another PP to move forward ). Why would you except all this dilution at this low price. Why does it not state in the press release as to whether they are transporting ore from BL to QR?
I honestly don't think my comments, or anyone on this boards affect the share price. Just look, after my post last night, it is up .01 on a 191,000 shares traded. If you want to see significant appreciation, I would suggest that holding management to a standard that provides confidence to the investing public.
It matters to me as an individual in the industry to not have issues where a resource goes form 10M to 7M to 1M Oz. and believe me, the BCSC didn’t cause that, the proper use of modeling, science and reality is what caused this. Simple things like telling the investors what holes are newly assayed, or why I have to go back to P/R to 2007 to see if a hole was done in the past? Why am I finding holes from 2011 that were never mentioned in a P/R? Does that instill confidence in you as an investor.
Wouldn’t you like to see people from RBC, Haywood, Canaccord, etc, tell clients that you should get in on this? It wouldn’t be hard… All you need to do is provide the investment public with information they need to have confidence in what is going on! Provide the background so that you can tell what the assays mean relative to the past. If they are truly finding gold in places not before known, why not show that and let the data speak for itself… instead, people will wonder till the completion of the assaying, and most probable, the share price will continue to dip on the lack of anything meaningful.
So all my comments about issues with the PG resource and what issues would arise a pointless? Wow, if you honestly invest w/o the knowledge to understand… or want to understand… well, good luck. FWIW, I have received numerous emails from investors on the board who actually appreciate at some level that people like Hammer, myself and a few others provide comments about what is being said.
I could go on… I will let it rest. I am not bashing at all in my mind… I am trying to hold the company to a standard that IMO would help this company provide confidence…
One clarification.... The report should have contained multiple cross sections that should have shown the ore body relative to old historical workings... Those workings are quite significant by old historical mining standards... AND finally... These are all only my opinion, and no investor should make an investment based on my opinion... JMHo!