So let’s put it all together… only a handful of companies in this market can actually make money. So shoot all the rest down that can’t. I think we need to look at the larger issue here.  It’s called corporate governance and there is an RP in every company.

It’s not that most companies are following the rules laid out by the government.  No… government incentive dictates that if a company borrows money that’s good if it makes money then it has to pay (in the form of corporate tax). Do you think they would have got a penny from the Quebec government for Plan Nord if they didn’t need the money? The irony is that losses offset gains and are required to stay in business. Like almost every company out there…these guys are just playing the corporate game. Some managers are better than others at playing it. There’s a fine line between profit and loss that parallels a company’s survival or failure. Believe it or not… it’s not always good to show a profit. In the eyes of a CEO the idea is make enough to stay in business and make sure you take a slice…the ultimate goal is take some profits when you can but make sure you claim your losses regardless. In most cases, the shareholder will eventually get their share but the priority is not legislated. Maybe it should be law that shareholders get their share first? Sadly, it’s not the reality.  Although there will be periods where the shareholder suffers… there are also periods where growth will be evident and the shareholder will prosper.  The main objective is to keep a limit on dilution while keeping the ship afloat. If corporate management loses control of debt the ship will definitely sink, but you can be sure that they will still take the first lifeboat.

Even RP admits that this is probably the biggest turning point in the company’s history.  This is the one thing he may be right about. Wouldn’t it be ironic if swapping bullion sources – at this time - ends up being the key to this company’s long term survival?