something special..., page-62

re: something special t4p... TwinTurboCelica...

I think you missed the point...and no, I will not be drawn into personal insult.

-----------
No I didn’t and I like that you did not get drawn in but it wasn’t an insult, don’t take it that way. I like you T4P, just need to poke the bear to get it to growl sometimes.
-----------

My "value" model for MMB is based on more than just the obvious clinical resource potential...as I said, so much more to applying market value, or at least the perception thereof.

Not sure why you are on the attack here…I have not questioned the potential of TRO...but to put it very simply for you, there are other forces at play in this stock, which you yourself allude to...there also other issues which you clearly do not comprehend.

-----------
I comprehend, just not going to write an essay on market forces, psychology, dilution, market caps, takeover, Chinese investors, Zinc market, availability of resources, Share Placements, blah blah blah
-----------

I think you are getting caught up in the comparison play...always a worthwhile exercise, but a long way from an exact science.

-----------
Agree, but comparisons are what life is about.
-----------

How much is known about TRO's resource and how much is not? This is something you should consider when making your comparisons...and when doing so, ask yourself how much is known about MMB's resource and how much is not?

-----------
Well TRO is more than two untested holes and is JORC. More than most, but you might know that if you had read the 90 pages of posts over at CJS.
-----------

Same goes for other stocks in a similar boat...we need to consider how much is likely still to be uncovered and what is the potential blue-sky upside? Such considerations can have a major impact on market perception and sentiment...and we all know how important this can be.

-----------
Agree. That’s why I bought so many MMB. Bought at 27.5, 28c, 27c, 57c and 69c. If I do not understand blue sky, why would I buy so much on one hole in the ground?
-----------

I also discussed market influences in my reply which you either did not understand or simply ignored...I suggest if TRO were listed overseas, it would have a market cap twice what it is on ours for the very same resource...think about that for a minute.

-----------
Ahhh… its parent who owns 54% is – Listed on the Canadian Venture exchange and they have even less of a clue. (and is only about 40% market cap of TRO). You must of missed that bit.
-----------

Further...as I suggested, blue sky is a very powerful market driver; how much unknown upside (in multiples of the current share price) do you personally see available for TRO...and when is it likely to be realised for market participants?

-----------
See previous postings (posted below before). Now $1.30, $10 is VERY possible mid term
-----------

With respect, you seem overly focused on TRO to the point you are missing some very important value issues. I guess this is perhaps understandable given their likely inherent value, but it might be worth your while listening to a non-involved (currently) market participant who is doing nothing more than voicing an opinion on the current state of play.

-----------
Hey, I like MMB, spent $60,000 on it actually and still hold 95,000 shares..
-----------

I understand this can be very hard to do however…and by the way, I did not volunteer this opinion, you extracted it from me.

-----------
I know, that’s what I wanted. I asked nicely a month ago, but you ignored me. Sometimes you need to stir the pot to get the bees to sting.
-----------

Finally, dilution is one of the most critical factors when applying "value"...if the production route will result in a doubling of shares on issue to fund the cap ex, then you can half the perceived "value" of the shares immediately, such are the forward projection characteristics of the market players.

-----------
Agree. But with TRO it is low. Lower than CDU. Yet you keep mentioning it.
-----------

The very same players who will likely support the future fund raisings.

-----------
Agree. CVC being one.
-----------

However…remove the need for future dilution and you do not get the same discount imposition on today’s share price.

Anyway, back to my arbitrary number for MMB...the "10% in ground value" is not something I would apply accross the boards (I have already suggested this several times), but given the specifics of what I suspect MMB will prove up, and given my best guess estimates (this far in advance)…and taking into account the other influencing factors likely to impact on their market cap, I feel 10% of the likely "announced" resource will be appropriate once (if) the current drill program clarifies for the market the nature of what potentially lies beneath.

-----------
You use it a lot, I just don’t know if it is “fair”. I hope it is. It means more upside for TRO and MMB and CDU. (I hold 100,000 TRO and 95,000 MMB and used to hold CDU on your advise and sold for a profit)
-----------

Cheers!

-----------
As I said before T4P, I like your posts and appreciate your research, that’s why I asked you the question. Your “valuations” have there knockers and believers. My point is you used 10% for CDU and now for MMB. I hope you are right, I am a MMB holder, but it does not seem to hold for TRO.

I am obviously too stupid to see why it doesn’t, and therefore my question. Is 10% wrong or does not it apply to TRO?

You must be saying it does not apply to TRO due to “other factors”. That’s cool. I personally think the market has got it wrong with TRO, as they have with TOE.V (the parent). As a holder of MMB, I hope you are right, and as stated before, I value that opinion. You might just be.

Thanks