You're trying to prove a point with an invalid assumed correlation.
For the period from start of ops at Lance to present, Pala and RCF have been (significant) net accumulators of PEN stock. In the same period, the SP has tanked over 75%. The empirical correlation is an inverse one of Pala/RCF holding versus SP, i.e. when Pala/RCF add, SP goes down, i.e. run for the hills. But not the Wyoming hills.
You're trying to prove a point with an invalid assumed...
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 90 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
