Hello MitchyM.

Of course your exasperation is well taken. I say “of course” because several of us banged our heads against the wall during the turmoil of 2012 and earlier and subsequently. 

Last week, in response to a Shareholder inquiry, I sent a link to him of a message I posted here on 23 October 2012. Some things never change.

Do yourself a great favor. Do not repeat (and keep repeating) the mistakes the more patient amongst us keep making. I am not, by any means, saying that you should give up or that you should not try. But what you need to do is: Come up with something far out and beyond my powers of thought.

For the benefit of those here who have not experienced the exasperation of what it means to be ignored twenty times over, as follows is my earlier message. Don’t be put off by its length. Learn from all my repeated errors. In the long run, your better efforts will be better informed. 

Hello Luker. [23 October 2012]

Thank you (and everybody else) for being my advocate for what, in turn, I’ve been advocating. It’s important not to lose sight of the fact our original advocacy was for better communications with the investment community. The fact that all of our communications to management about their lack of communication skills were never communicated typifies our dilemma and underlines management’s failures (again, to communicate).

You don’t get traction in the investment community by issuing Press Releases and doing nothing else. It takes hard smart work over the years with hard smart work and close attention to detail every day. Where would our share price be if that had been done?

Never do you attract essential investment money on favourable terms by rudely ignoring your present investors and making enemies of them, thereby soiling the company’s reputation. I cannot vote for the very people who have insulted all of us by mindlessly paying zero attention to the high price we’ve all paying for their disastrous policy of ignoring the community of investment advisors. We cannot consent any longer to what it costs us (over one million dollars in lost market valuation for very one cent decline in our share price) for the continuation of the mismanagement and incompetence we’ve all suffered, day after day after day, for years and years.

So far as “Shareholders for Accountability at Fancamp,” all the close readers of this Message Board are well aware that (without one naysayer) we banded together for good reason and good purpose. We advocate a program to build for our company more respect and recognition through better communicating the outstanding value of our assets. We should not allow ourselves to be sidetracked from our original intentions, which were well informed and not contentious.

So, then, why the title of the message I posted a week ago, “Throw the Bums Out”? Isn’t that intemperate? On the surface, it may seem so. But you need to look just under the surface.

Think about the three letters we’ve sent to all Seven Members of the present Board of Directors, over the past nearly three months. For those recent visitors of this Message Hub who haven’t seen the reforms we’ve been advocating, they were spelled out in our first letter. I will re-post them at the end of this message. Our reforms are the opposite of being contentious or intemperate. We did not act with any intention other than to lay out a thoughtful inexpensive program designed to improve the returns that investors have every right to expect. Again, read our reforms (to follow). Are they so abhorrent that they deserve zero response? Every single contributor to the Message Hub should be shunned and disrespected?

Not only did I mail that initial correspondence to the entire board (plus many others). I reinforced the first letter with two more, respectfully asking for a response. I even included conventional business cards and business cards in the form of refrigerator-door magnets. Far from we being antagonistic, on our business cards (front and back) is the message, “You’re invited to join us.” On top of that, in the letters themselves, repeatedly, I invited the Directors to join us. Not counting unanswered emails and unanswered phone calls, the arithmetic is three letters multiplied by seven people, which totals twenty-one pieces of mail.

Bob Granger more than responded. We’ve had serious discussions. By the way, we’ve had almost as many disagreements as agreements. But, certainly, the guy has the decency and integrity and simple good sense to, at least, have the courtesy to respond. How about the other six directors? The only other one I ever heard from is the only current Champion designee on the Board, Paul Ankcorn. What does he have to say? “I was put into a snake pit.” What does that tell you about the way things are being run?

Besides Granger and Ankcorn, how about everybody else? How have our reforms been received? A big fat zero.

While the other companies in our industry pull out all stops to attract new investors, our company insults the loyal investors who’ve stood by it, even after they’ve organized themselves to bring about the reforms that are crying out to be made. The penalty we’ll pay by keeping the present Board is not about the cost of hurting our feelings. This hurt is about monetary cost. How much longer are we willing to pay the price of neglectful mismanagement?

Keep in mind, we did not come up with the following Reforms out of the clear blue sky. They were inspired and informed by years of failed communications with Peter Smith by many long-term substantial investors (some of them industry executives, instrumental in earlier Fancamp financings). Dr. Smith’s talk to them has been exclusively about exploration targets and testing minerals. It’s never been about shareholders and what they have a right to expect. It’s never about how he’ll go about getting them a timely return on their investment. That’s not his orientation.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t like everything about the way Bob Granger staffed his clean-up crew. I don’t agree with all the marching orders he’s given them. But let the clean-up begin! We cannot afford to wait any longer. Even if they don’t agree with every word we have to say, at least his people will listen to us. That’s saying something.

Look at the alternative. Equivalent to our situation, if you owned a company (you were paying for every day, with your hard earned money): How long would you tolerate it being managed by an individual who insulted your best customers (you worked so hard to get) and who refused to discuss or even consider a meritorious initiative to attract new customers? Picture an individual who’s widely disrespected in his industry and who exhibits not the slightest inclination to change or, for one moment, to listen to reason. I, for one, would not hesitate to show a guy that clueless the door. That’s called addition by subtraction.

(Our Original) Addendum

Reform #1 / Change the Mindset at the Executive Level. 

The Directors need to act according to visualizing the company as being made up of Three Main Divisional Operations. All it takes is picturing this, as though it were written on a blackboard: 

Operational Division #1 = Exploring for Metal Ore 
Operational Division #2 = Arranging for the Monetization of Our Discoveries 
Operational Division #3 = Rewarding Shareholders for Their Investment 

So far as Operational Division #1: As a result of our excellent work, we’ve had many extraordinary successes. Right now, there’s no great urgency for much more. 

So far as Operational Division #2: Our recent agreement with Champion exemplifies progress. Proving the economic feasibility of extracting saleable metals from Magpie’s titaniferous magnetite ore is our next priority. 

So far as Operational Division #3: It is essentially dormant and non-functioning. 

Obviously, the attention needs to be rebalanced. That is, shift it away from where it’s needed the least to where it’s needed the most. We cannot afford to leave Operational Division #3 the way it is. Leaving it broken is costing us tens of millions of dollars. 

Reform #2 / Hire the Fulltime Investor Relations Manager.

At the heart of our investor-base-building initiatives will be a manager, on staff, who’ll have the responsibility of developing a list of Influential People at Investment Advisory Institutions. Our goal will be to make those key advisory people aware of us and, increasingly, arouse their curiosity. 

According to experience, talent, and performance, the manager will have autonomy and authority. To keep us on track, “Shareholders for Accountability at Fancamp” will contribute (for free) the more-than-sufficient business-building expertise we have amongst our members. The beauty of this set up is the $100K to $150K cost per year, more or less, compared to the $1.09 million increase in our market capitalization we’ll be getting for each one cent increase in our share price. 

Another way to look at this is according to the monetary value per phone conversation. Will one thousand in depth conversations and mailed information exchanges with influential investment advisors result in a one cent or greater increase in our share price? If so, the value of each phone call is $1090 or greater ($1.09 million divided by 1000). Naturally, if the 1000 calls result in a ten cents or greater share price uptick, the benefit per call would be $10,900 or greater. 

Reform #3 / Identify Key Investor and Media Institutions. 

To start, our IR Manager will compile a list of approximately 200 companies active in the investor community. This list will consist of prominent companies that provide research, analysis, information, and advice to investors. We will build strong relationships with the Investor Advisors, as each one becomes more and more familiar with us during our several conversations per year. 

Most exploration companies of consequence, on their websites, typically list three to six investment companies under the heading “Analyst Coverage.” We will redefine what that means. Instead of being three to six in length, our list will be hundreds in length compared to its present length of zero. We will go from being in Last Place to being in First Place. 

When it comes to “Analyst Coverage,” instead of the subject being an embarrassment, it will become our strength, as we will set new standards of excellence. Our list will grow to include every single desirable media publication and media outlet. It will target investment advisory firms, individual analysts, investment research companies, stock brokers, and selected investment bankers. 

Reform #4 / Build the Book of Business. 

Every organization we identify as a valued source of possible investor interest will be converted from being attractive but uninformed about us to being attractive and well informed. More and more, as we develop our list, its value will increase. 

Our IR Manager will converse with the key investment people at every single one of the 200 companies we’re initially targeting. This will happen at a regular but not rigid pace of two per day, more or less. Information acquired, at our end, will be treasured. If we perform our job well, the information about us, at the other end, will be treasured as well. 

Of course, when we’re shaking things up with a new venture, besides the anticipated questions, there will be unanticipated questions. We will correct course and change course according to what we learn and according to what we accomplish. 

Our activities will be carefully planned and performed according to schedule but will leave modest scope for revision. The IR Manager, in concert with the shareholders, will track and monitor and document the daily progress. 

Reform #5 / Improve the Quality of Our Business Relationships. 

The IR Manager will converse regularly with the influential people initially reached earlier. We will get to know them. They will get to know all about us. There will be a greater and greater meeting of the minds after every conversation and after every exchange of information. We will treat our every business relationship with care and respect, as though the financial well-being of Fancamp’s shareholders hangs in the balance. It does. 

Every investor advisor will be treated according to the progression of how our individualized relationship is evolving. The conversations we have will not be by rote. Different people have different interests. Differentiated literature will be mailed according to the common subjects of interest and according to the nature and the stage of the relationship. We will track statistically and otherwise an investment advisor’s client relationships and assist the investment advisor accordingly. 

Keeping up with all this requires discipline and dedication. It requires keeping our eye on the ball. It requires the feedback we can only get from generating real-time or soon-after reports. We will learn how we’re doing as we’re doing it. There’s no substitute for actively tracking our progress. New investment advisory relationships are precious. By developing a bank of knowledge about our conversations with each investor advisor, we will put ourselves in the best position to make our case each time we follow-up. 

Resulting from our planning, scheduling, and strategizing , we will begin accumulating advocates who trust us and who’ve taken the time to investigate us. In turn, our new friends will talk to their associates and to the investors who trust them. We will develop an educated and appreciative following. In the investment industry, there will be a proliferation of respected institutions and influential analysts and commentators who’ll have hard statistics to highlight the positive things they’re saying about us. 

Reform #6 / Issue Regularly-Scheduled Website Progress Reports. 

On a daily basis (even broken down by AM and PM), how many conversations did we have with Investment Advisory Firms? How many were first time? How many were follow-ups? What kind of literature do we need to prepare to reinforce our message? From what we’ve already mailed out, what’s the response? In general, what’s working? What’s not? How can we improve what we’re doing? Who’s writing us up in the industry media? When will the articles appear? Are we getting TV interviews? What are our outstanding successes? 

We can summarize and describe much of this and put it on the Investor Section of our website. With pride and confidence, we can refer the Investor Advisors to that website page as well as the other pages where we update the information daily. Refresh the information regularly and they’ll keep coming back. Most of the time, confidentiality will not be an issue. So we shouldn’t make it one. Unless the conversation is “off-the-record,” we should post, as a matter of routine on our website, all the information we have of interest to present shareholders and future investors. 

Reform #7 / Display Important Investment Information on Our Website. 

Why aren’t we displaying what investors want to know? Yesterday, what were the closing spot prices for Titanium and Iron? During the trading day, what were the trading ranges of Champion and Argex stocks? How is the market valuing the reported resources (tonnages of metal ores) of our competitors compared to how it’s valuing our reported resources? 

Dynamic content drives web traffic. We want people to keep coming back. We don’t want people to pay us a visit one time, look around, and never return. General industry information (which changes daily in interesting ways) should be tied together with Fancamp investor information (which changes daily in interesting ways). 

We have the platform to drive web traffic our way. Why not use it? We have the platform to tie together our corporate officers, shareholders, retail investors, investment advisors, and people generally interested in the exploration and metal ores industries. Are we better off without these people? Are we better off sending them their separate ways?