g'day bill., page-7

xunzi

Mostly the company - I didn't realize when I wrote that that it could be misconstrued. But it does raise that aspect: that LT on the PEN forum are perceived in that way.

But when you analyse it, it's easily synthesised. PEN's fundamentals are in direct proportion to LT's own fundamental beliefs. The two go hand in hand.

Passion rises to the surface, protagonists take offence, we fundamentalists hit back, threads get moderated.

But that's just me going off on a tangent - since you raised the question.

IMO, PEN's perceived "black sheep status" derives from the fact that it is poorly understood.

If Cowie can go on about two uranium stocks, as an example, each of which are relatively solid yet both of which are light years away from PEN (talking global financial risk, sovereign risk, no confirmed metrics which might support future equity valuations), then I believe "Houston, we have a problem." (And even more so when Cowie himself acknowledges that PEN WILL be the first to production.)

Then again, and I've said it before, there are people who are stuck with blind spots. Some might accuse myself and others of just that. But speaking on my own behalf, I have a vision - though not one I intend to be trapped by, if circumstances change.

Perhaps it's the fact that PEN isn't sexy enough for some investors, which personally suits me just fine. Nothing can be more offputting. I'd like to run hard, very hard, prior to seeing "johnny come latelys" jump down from their tall trees.


In a way, I suppose, I could liken it to statistics: just like bikinis, they gave you plenty of great ideas but hide the most important bits.

Presently, the market, in its "infinite wisdom," is attributing didly squat to PEN's sexier bits - those identical bits which the PEN faithful are only too intimately aware and appreciate only too well.