I can't answer your question EZ because I don't have your ability to know for a fact why Fung and Belanger did what they did. You articulate reasons for actions that I doubt you know factually. These suppositions you put forth to back up your arguement make little sense to what DOC is saying.

The world is full of people who are on the losing end of a situation and proclaim the other side just got lucky. For the sake of arguement lets say you are right and FUNG is a genuis compared to Belanger. Lets say we had the best CEO with the best project. Lets say you are right about everything.

As an investor who like you I bought into Fung and the project and by passed GRZ because of the poor quaility. I was interested in gold mining not bank interest like you tell us.

What Doc and most of us who are unhappy with Fung are saying is once it became apparant that Chavez wasn't going to all either GRZ or KRY to mine the property Belanger did a much better job of protecting shareholder value.

Once both projects had been taken back by Chavez look at what happened to both companies. Kry was forced into CCAA protection and went from owning 100% of the award and settlement to where we are now hoping to hang on to a small slice.

CEO's are judged on many things but one of the most important is return to owners (shareholders). For the smartest CEO with the best project we sure seem to have the worst result.

One shareholder I know has often said that he believes we could have agreeded to a deal with VZ before filling for arbitration for the $600 million we invested. This would have paid the bondholders back leaving shareholders over a $1.00 a share. Why wasn't this done if it was an option?

I will use supposition like you and say Kry wasn't interested in making a deal like that because it would have ended the gravy train for management plus management owned very little of the company. They wouldn't have gained any of the award other than what their shares paid them.

So lets compare Fung and Belanger in a different light. Fung owns very few shares and takes Kry on a path that destroys shareholder value while protecting managements percentage. Belanger takes the path of no dillution and minimize share holder value decreases. He does this as a major shareholder. Would Fung and Belanger have taken different paths if their positions were reversed? My guess is yes and we would be praising Fung for protecting our value.

Where does that leave us? With the old investor advice of do not invest in any company where management isn't heavily invested. This is the only way to ensure management will do their best for shareholders.