Hello From Sudbury.

I agree the “Sector Newswire” is, indeed, “quite positive.” It makes a series of excellent points. Graphically, the way it’s presented is pleasing to the eye and very readable.

However, (reading between the lines) it also tips me off that the author has not taken the time to study (or even read) the original source material. Regrettably, that is a sign that Sector is not taking the subject seriously enough to launch an active and sustained campaign to follow-up with its client investors.

When you don’t completely understand the subject yourself, it’s all the more difficult to get others to be persuaded by your slapdash research. It also suggests to me that Sector is not even going to make a serious effort; being that they haven’t even taken the time to teach themselves the facts they’re presenting, over which they’re supposed to be enthusiastic enough to make a sale.

The last page of Fancamp’s Annual Financial Statements contains a chart titled, “Schedule II – Exploration Expenditures on Exploration and Evaluation Assets.” The “assets” were those “incurred in the Year Ended April 30, 2014” and “incurred in the Year Ended April 30, 2013.” The troubling question is: How well has Sector “evaluated” Fancamp’s “Exploration and Evaluation Assets” when it doesn’t even mention most of them in its slickly-produced sell sheet?

Of the sixteen “Exploration and Evaluation Assets,” two of our partner companies, subsequently, took over the expenditures for two of them. Out of the remaining fourteen properties (accounting for a total of $4,016,185 exploration expenditures), the “Sector Newswire” discussed two of them, “Beauce” (accounting for $86,287) and “Desolation Lake” (accounting for $370,382). Not one word is said about any of the remaining twelve properties (accounting for a total of $3,559,516).

There’s an expression, “Actions speak louder than words.” In addition, there’s a catchphrase, “Follow the money.” Exploration spending of $3,559,516 on the unreported properties is 7.79 times more significant than the exploration spending of $456,669 on the properties in the “Sector Newswire.” The unreported properties (totaling $3,559,516) include five of the six that Management considers to be “Significant Mineral Properties” in this year’s “Management Discussion and Analysis.” Especially noteworthy are the following four properties that Management highlights but Sector ignores:

1) Gaspe Bay Group ($1,187,928 expensed).
2) Clinton ($760,878 expensed) and—adjacent to Clinton—Alder Pond ($39,731 expensed).
3) Stoke Mountain ($740,656 expensed).
4) MTK ($276,491 expensed) and—also in Chapais—Phoenix ($100,436 expensed).

Our Great Sovereign does not grasp the fact that we already have more than enough to stir the passions of potential investors. So far as putting into practice an organized person-to-person communications program, as we all know, he hasn’t a clue. But that has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the exploration expenses of Numbers One through Four. I have confidence and complete trust that Dr. Smith is on to something (probably four times over, on top of everything else).