ceetong wrote: That's right. However, it appears you have missed my point. I cited Pitchblack as a prime example. Together all questionable companies and valuations amount to a very significant percentage of what is being presented as AAB's NAV.
Ok, I'll give you Pitchblack & Valencia. Do you believe that the valuations of the other public holdings are excessively inflated? In my previous post, I explained my rationale on PLASA, how a "fair market value" based on public trading of LIX can be utilized to come up with a private holding fair value that is at least $20 million higher. Based on Desert Lion's recent funding, we can also add another $1.5 million. You're insinuating management is purposely inflating their NAV, yet based on these two holdings alone one could argue their private holdings should be stated at around $37 million. I, on the other hand, believe they prudently take a conservative approach as they do not want the "pump-and-dump" shareholder. Blue Sky Energy recently announced at PP at $1.00 a share, trades at $0.90-$1.00 typically. Fura just closed a PP at $0.21, trading between $0.25-$0.35. Why would private investors be participating in these projects if they're of no value whatsoever? Is it possible they have some more insight into the scope of the resources/assets? You can say what you want about Forbes & Manhattan's compensation and fees, but I think "management pumping up Pitchblack" to gain an extra $200,000 in book value is baseless and without merit. From what I have observed over the years in the metals and mining markets, especially compared to their peers, Forbes is very conservative in their valuation methodology, the exact opposite of the predatory promoters that you come across in this industry.
So don't you agree a 471% increase in valuation based on no news is highly dubious? Don't you agree that losing $120.000 per annum for next to nothing is not in the best interest of shareholders? Can't you see a so-called "investment" in Pitchblack is a mere transfer of money from Aberdeen shareholders to F&M?
I would be very much interested to learn who did buy all these shares of Pitchblack, can you tell me? Just in case you don't know who did that, how do you know who did not?
Of course it can be construed as dubious without a PR. At the same time, I'm not managing the company, participating in the private placements, or actively soliciting for funds for Pitchblack. All I would know is who is required to report, which anyone can look up on CanadianInsider.
Regarding the SP appreciation, it depends on if there is a fundamental change in either the resources involved, the company being restructured, etc. No, unlike yourself, I do not believe management's goal is to rob me of all my hard-earned dollars. The junior space is far more complicated than most know or acknoledge, hence the reason why the failure rate is so high. I believe those funds were utilized for some sort of business initiative, even if no result has occurred as of yet. You, on the other hand, believe the funds were just funnelled straight to F&M for no transfer of services. This is what I fail to grasp, why would you actively own any shares in a company whose sole purpose is to leave you with nothing?
Do yourself a favor if you believe all the projects are overvalued and the company plots nefarious ways to extract money for no services provided...sell your shares and invest in an outfit you deem to be worthy of your funds. To me the situation presents itself very differently. Stan Bharti is a man many will say you should stay away from as far as possible. many will say. Aberdeen's portfolio consists of companies that are being run by Bharti friends and that agreed to pay hefty fees to Bharti's F&M. So I see Aberdeen's portfolio like a barrel with many holes in it, all bleeding away money to F&M. Did you ever add do a quick calculation how much money these Aberdeen-held companies pay to F&M as a group?
Yes, I'm familar with Otto's blog. All I will say is he's been helpful at times, not so much in others. I believe he has good intentions.
With regard to LIX and PLASA I'll keep it short by saying nobody other than Chemetall is going to produce Lithium on an industrial scale in Clayton Valley and Diablillios' value hinges on PLASA's ability to overcome severe obstacles that I've been told have been the reason why nobody was doing any work on this salar since 2012 despite a worldwide Lithium craze.
To sum it up, there are heaps of good reasons to apply a hefty discount to what I believe the company pretends was its NAV.
Perhaps, as a LIX shareholder I don't attribute any value to Clayton Valley. As the CEO as repeatedly stated, the land package they own is a longer-term play predicated on the fact that future extraction technologies will provide for cheaper extraction in lower-concentrated areas such as those found in Nevada. Not to mention the water rights issues, etc. We're on the same page there.
When it comes to PLASA you're speculating based on rumours about CO2 emmissions that are on the internet. I find it a little hard to believe that RM, AAB, and LIX have never mentioned this issue or even the potential of this issues since I've been following the project. Is it possible this is something that could hurt the economic viability of the project? Sure. However, I think if the magnitude of the problem was such that it threatened the project to that degree, there would be public press releases to that effect. The team LIX has assembled looks pretty well-versed, and I believe they have the potential to create tremendous value for both LIX and AAB shareholders in the months & years ahead.