Doug,

Now, I am really confused.

You stated in your previous post:

"Professional investors use well defined trading rules to manage large amounts of capital. These rules vary from firm to firm, but the principles are quite similar. One very important rule is simply this: tying up capital which doesn't produce any source of revenue for any period of time is wasting resources.

Professional money has been forced to engage in less risk and with less total funds, to produce regular short term cash flow in a market which doesn't produce as much. This changes how money flows into and out of their investment decisions.

If I'm on track a couple of points should be noted. First, price control, as it should be, is out of the BOD's hands. "

Based on your first post Noront's price is down because typing up capital that doesn't produce revenue is wasting resources and professional money has been FORCED to engage in less risk and price control is out of the board's hands.

I mentioned why are the other Rof stocks holding up better than Noront. After all they tie up capital that is non revenue producing, they carry MORE RISK than Noront. They do not have two proven deposits. To this you now mention :

"Smaller companies may also be given premiums on initial discovery phazes and a premium for being in the vicinity of NOT's large discoveries."

Sorry, but, I'm just not getting it. If a neighbour makes a discovery they may go up in price. but if Noront let's say triples their deposit there should be no premium. Do I got that right?

Then you write: "On the other hand, a takeover bid to acquire NOT would take substantially more resources and hence less likely. This fact could easily account for price divergence." My comment", the current market cap of Noront for any of the major players is chump change. Absolute chump change. Even our First Nation Indians could buy Noront for cash if they wanted to.

When I mentioned that Noront's share price manages to go down while two things happen at the same time (a) shorts cover & (b) institutional ownership goes up NOT down. If fund managers are going out of the stock why is the institutional ownership going up? Who are the sellers?"

You didn't really answer this question. How did we have a short postion in May 31, 2010 of 1,048,100 with a share price of 1.33 and June 30, 2010 we have a share price of only 1.13 but the short position was 39,100. How were over 1 million shares purchased over a one month period with fairly low volume with the corresponding drop in share price? I don't know whether today our institutional count is 59 % or 69%. What I do know is that when I look at the corporate presentation that show the institutional ownership, while the percentage has been growing our share price has been dropping. I suggest going to the Noront website and downloading the presentations. It went from 55% to 59%. If I go to the Vancouver resource presentation dated Jan. 19 2010, slide 4 shows 59%. If I go to the most recent presentation dated June 4, 2010 , the NYSSA presentation, I see also 59% on slide 6. The share price Jan. 19 was 1.66. On June 4 our share price was 1.29. Selling brought the price down. Why is the 59% intitutional ownership not changing on the corporate presentations....if the theory for the NORONT price beating is movement out due to funds don't want to tie up non revenue producing capital or funds are looking for less risk. Why do these presentations not show lowered institutional numbers?

Doug, when I brought up the fact that we tripled the resource but the share price went down, your explanation was:

The truth is the spot value of the commodity in the ground is zero until it has been extracted. If you can say with 100% certainty that you can deliver 1 contract worth of commodity from the deposit at an exact delivery date, then you can use a NPV to give it full value. ....

So in the short term the commodity may be raising but would not be reflected in the stock price of NOT. In fact this would support my theory of time to production reflecting on the SP. The shorter the time the higher the NPV and vice-versa.

I don't think you understood my point. We tripled the deposit in a rising metal market and our price went down. Our price didn't stay unchanged it went down. There was a share price attached to Noront before we tripled the deposit. It was not zero. Again, we tripled the deposit and at the same time the metal prices were rising while this happened, OUR PRICE WENT DOWN.

You commented, "So in the short term the commodity may be raising but would not be reflected in the stock price of NOT. " I'm trying to point out that at this point I'd be less pissed if we had NO reflection of this "short term commodity appreciation" in our price as you indicated. Again, I'm trying to tell you that our share price didn't, just do nothing. IT WENT DOWN AFTER THE NEWS. Down. Down because of Rule 66666666666. How else do I put it. WE got punished for good results not ignored.

Lastly, your comment, First," price control, as it should be, is out of the BOD's hands. "

How do you make a comment like , "price control is out of the board's hands." How do you know this for certain? I could understand a comment like , price control should be out of the board's hands. Perhaps then you could explain to me the following: SNC, Micon,Golder and Associates,AECOM, have no mention of any dealings at all with Noront in their press releases. Absolutely nothing. Micon at least has reference to KWG. Now whose idea was that? http://www.norontresources.com/News/getDocument/notpr-2009.11.02.pdf/177 . Open up this link and read it. How much do you think Noront is paying for ALL THIS WORK SNC is doing. So let me understand something here, Ontario hasn't seen this in 100 years, the gov't is making it a priority and no mention on the SNC website??????????????. A project like this shows no NR. Why? How about because SNC is one of the largest engineering and construction groups in the world. Do you release the traffic on their website? Why were we not advertised in an NR? SNC is getting good revenue for this study and the ROF is high profile. If all the big names listed above mentioned affiliation with the ROF and Noront would it not be positive? Would a senior listing not be positive. The board has some control over the price.