Hello Eudai.

You’re right insofar as I didn’t comment on the central point you were making (that is the irrationality of Sellers asking .065 when the Buyer stated the willingness to pay .07). Thank you for being “interested to hear” my opinion of the “particular issue here.”

I believe the Seller’s irrationality in making the .065 offer is more a question of being irrational in a general way than it is a question of being irrational in this one particular instance. It’s likely the Seller never performed Due Diligence.

If you completely put aside the subject of Fancamp’s valuation so as to zero-in on the logic of asking .065 when you can get .07, you can actually make a case (so far as this goes) that the Seller is completely attuned to the logic of market such as it exists (or doesn’t exists) today. The irrationality so far as this particular case is more on the Buyer (Fancamp) end than on the Seller end (if you ignore the fact that Fancamp has an erroneous valuation).

After all, it’s one thing to put 1,500,000 shares up for sale out of ignorance (or out of being misguided). It’s a whole different thing—much higher on the scale of irrationality—to just leave the shares out there for someone else to snatch (especially when you have ready access to the facts and especially when you should know better and especially when you’ve gone to the trouble of making elaborate public arrangements to buy considerably more shares than presently being offered).

So far as taking issue with anything you said in your original message, absolutely, I did not. You’ve written, in your last message, “It’s just semantics Teleprobe. I think you ... fixated on my poor choice of an adjective.” So far as my being “fixated” with your “poor choice of an adjective,” I was not nor did I say your adjective was a “poor choice” in the first place. All those are your words, not mine.

My words were, “You call it ‘amazing.’ No doubt, it is. Besides the amazing part, something else is going on here beyond that.” When someone says “no doubt” you’re right to say an incident is “amazing,” it’s not a negative comment on your choice of adjective. My further developing your ideas and sentiments by my talking about “something else” that is “going on here beyond that” in no shape or form is remotely the slightest criticism of anything in your original message.

Besides what I just said, I do take issue with two other things in your latest message. I bring it up not to be critical but rather for clarification and for the purpose of contributing positively to our conversation (which I respect and which I appreciate your having with me). First, you politely belittled what you were about to say when you characterized our differences (in the first sentence of your message) as “just semantics.”

The difference in an adjective here and there sometimes can amount to more than “just semantics.” You yourself thought it important enough to start talking about adjectives. The irony is, your bringing up the subject as well as your expressing and developing your ideas concerning the subject both serve to underline how important words actually are. By your very act of talking about this you’ve illustrated that the specific words chosen will determine where the conversation will go. Words themselves are an important component of the human thought process and the operation of the frontal part of the human brain (which thinks in words and which is helpless to think without using words).

I use the word “disconnect” to describe the central nature of Fancamp trades. To me, that’s a big deal. To everyone conversing on this Message Hub, without exception, the present trading range of Fancamp shares is highly relevant. You yourself characterize what’s going on as “defying logic.” You go on to say, “The market does not value any of Fancamp’s assets and they [sic] haven’t for quite some time!!” Not criticizing anything you said, what I did was crystallize and develop your idea, which I myself have had (also for “quite some time”).

In my thinking about this, the word I use is “disconnect” (insofar as the disconnection from reality and insofar as the disconnection from rationality). Emphatically, this is not “just semantics.” On this Message Hub, understandably, we all look at Fancamp trades through the lens of a magnifying glass. There’s nothing wrong with that. But, while doing so, we should not forget for “quite some time” every single trade has been at a price totally disconnected from reality; and every single trade was at a price totally disconnected from rationality.

When I use the root word “disconnect,” I use it in the literal sense of the word. It’s the same sense of the word as how it would describe the operation of an electric lamp that stands separated from any electrical outlet. When the electric cord is completely detached from electricity, it doesn’t matter how many times you rotate the lamp’s circular on-off switch. Should you leave the lamp disconnected, you will not get any light output from it.

It is futile to expect anything that has more than rapidly-diminishing instructional value from Fancamp’s present trading range because of one overriding stark reality. The share price is disconnected from the Spot Market prices of its mineral resources. It’s that simple. Beyond the short term, what we learn from tracking the prices of Fancamp shares these days is invalidated because the price of Fancamp shares is disconnected from the Spot Market prices of its underlying mineral resources.

Presently, the gap is somewhere near the scale of a 1000-to-1 (more or less) undervaluation (at 2% of the Spot Market of Titanium, Chromium, Vanadium, Iron, and Nickel). I’ve endeavored to be even-handed with my thousand-to-one rough estimate. In other words, the final more precise measurement is just as likely to be 1050-to-1 as it will turn out to be 950-to-1.

Of course, the prices trades take place on Metals Spot Markets, because of the worldwide trading volume, have a statistical validity that any one modest company will never have. So far as Fancamp’s trading volume is concerned, the comparison is on the order of deciding the heavier of two weights. Is it one flea or is it the combined weight of a herd of elephants? I would not need a scale to determine the winner.

That brings me to the second (friendly) disagreement I have with your second message (on this subject). Comparing the irrationality of accepting .065 in a trade when .07 was doable (which may or not be the case) you say, “That just seems to defy logic much like using pie in the sky figures you come up that never translate into actual share value.”

I believe that you know about the several times, on this forum, I crunched the Magpie NI-43-100 resource numbers. After I corrected the one mistake I once made, nobody ever found any other fault with my arithmetic. Our gross undervaluation is a numerical fact.

Arguments can be made that there are overriding concerns that invalidate the numbers. For example, as I recall, only one time, one person claimed there was not enough evidence for me to consider the Magpie resources as being “ore.” By that, he meant that they were not economically viable insofar as the metallurgy to extract the Titanium (although he didn’t put it exactly that way). For what it’s worth, everybody here sided with me after I cited the successful tests. As well, certainly, other arguments can be made (which haven’t been made). I don’t claim to have all the answers. I haven’t even been challenged to look up any of the answers.

But one thing is for sure; when I did my number crunching, I started with well-documented numbers. This was not a case of me “coming up” with “pie in the sky figures.” On top of that, step-by-step, I explained all the arithmetic. On top of that, over time as the Spot Market and the Fancamp prices changed, on several occasions I updated everything. I only received compliments here for doing that. Hard numbers are hard numbers. They are what they are. There’s no emotion or opinion to make the numbers do what you want them to do.

Is the Fancamp undervaluation astronomically high? Yes. But I did nothing on my end to make it that way. Are your words “pie in the sky” unreservedly bad words or unfairly critical words? Not really. More than anything, the words “pie in the sky” suggest something that is good is “unlikely to happen.” What I’m saying here is: Nobody should infer that I ever said the undervaluation would, at a later date, become the actual valuation. In other words, I never said that because we’re undervalued 1000-to-1, the price of our shares will go up one-thousand fold. If I had done so, I realize it would make me look less than objective. Indeed, I do have ideas and opinions on the subject. So far, I’ve resisted expressing them.