BIG: Tom Darden interviewed in Fortune on his LENR insvestment...

  • The Impossible Fact
    Palmstroem, old, an aimless rover,
    walking in the wrong direction
    at a busy intersection
    is run over.


    "How," he says, his life restoring
    and with pluck his death ignoring,
    "can an accident like this
    ever happen? What's amiss?


    "Did the state administration
    fail in motor transportation?
    Did police ignore the need
    for reducing driving speed?


    "Isn't there a prohibition,
    barring motorized transmission
    of the living to the dead?
    Was the driver right who sped ... ?"


    Tightly swathed in dampened tissues
    he explores the legal issues,
    and it soon is clear as air:
    Cars were not permitted there!


    And he comes to the conclusion:
    His mishap was an illusion,
    for, he reasons pointedly,
    that which must not, can not be.


    Christian Morgenstern, english by Max Knight
    :lenr:

  • Yes it is a commitment, but don't forget Woodford Patient Capital has other interests than [lexicon]IH[/lexicon], and their current share price is at a 3-4% discount to Net Asset Value - which some might see as a reasonable investment opportunity in itself.

  • Quote

    Yes it is a commitment, but don't forget Woodford Patient Capital has other interests than [lexicon]IH[/lexicon], and their current share price is at a 3-4% discount to Net Asset Value - which some might see as a reasonable investment opportunity in itself.


    No-one outside the LENR bubble sees WPC as synonymous with LENR. The (misguided) [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] investment is a tiny part of their portfolio.


    Quote

    [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] have invested. A big cost.


    Right - [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] have invested but that is because Darden (= [lexicon]IH[/lexicon]) believes in LENR. It is not new validation because a lot of LENR people would bet on Rossi as possible, which is all Darden is doing.


    Quote

    [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] have done multiple tests. A cost. [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] have done long term tests. A big cost.


    We don't know what is the cost, but in any case it is much less than the investment, and it is not new money.


    Quote

    [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] are still investing. A sign of continued interest.[lexicon]IH[/lexicon] have made multiple public statements of interest in LENR.


    Given Darden's stated aim of long-term support for LENR how could [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] do anything else? They have consistently de-emphasised their Rossi-specific support. They have consistently being upbeat about LENR without specifics. They need to be upbeat about LENR to attract new investment (Darden's aim) and you can be sure if they had specifics they would be more definitely upbeat. Words cost nothing, and given the initial investment cannot be undone [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] cannot withdraw from Rossi (VCs don't do that, they let money run).



    Quote

    [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] have set up a number of subsidiaries to increase the investment in LENR up to figure of $1 Billion a substantial investment of capitol.


    Exactly. Darden is using his support and money in the hope that much more (of other people's) money will go into long-term LENR research. If that pans out (with LENR found to be real) of course he will be seen as visionary. Given he is attempting this using [lexicon]IH[/lexicon], [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] must be as positive as it possibly can be about its investments and LENR.

  • TC wrote "... if they had specifics they would be more definitely upbeat."


    1. You don't know what specifics (or not) Darden/[lexicon]IH[/lexicon]/Woodford have. If you do know, please share with us.


    2. You don't know how another human or organisation would act in this case. If you do - wow! What are you doing here?

  • [...]and you can be sure if they had specifics they would be more definitely upbeat. Words cost nothing[...]


    I guess you underestimate the heavy economic and business impact such an announcement could have!
    You are a scientist, and from that POV it's necessary to publish any results.


    But from the business POV there are several reasons to hold positive results back for a while.
    Simply to make internal tactical preparations, as long as no one cares about you...

  • Quote

    I guess you underestimate the heavy economic and business impact such an announcement could have!You are a scientist, and from that POV it's necessary to publish any results.But from the business POV there are several reasons to hold positive results back for a while.Simply to make internal tactical preparations, as long as no one cares about you...


    There are always possible reasons for short-term withholding information. More than that is not allowed by financial regulation (and also, in the real world where world-class scoops are leaked) is not possible.


    Also, the meme "no-one is saying this because it is so good it must be withheld" is a great way to argue for anything you like on no evidence.


    So: care to put a time limit on this business-motivated restraint? Then I can come back and say I told you so at the appropriate time...

  • Quote


    TC wrote "... if they had specifics they would be more definitely upbeat."


    1. You don't know what specifics (or not) Darden/[lexicon]IH[/lexicon]/Woodford have. If you do know, please share with us.


    2. You don't know how another human or organisation would act in this case. If you do - wow! What are you doing here?


    Well... I know that [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] are seeking investment in LENR from third parties and therefore will paint as rosy a picture as they legally can. That does not require any special skill.


    Using logic (again no special skill) I can therefore deduce that they do not have any unreleased major positive information, as some here are speculating.


    I did make this argument above, but perhaps I did not do so clearly enough for those not aware of it.,

  • Hi all


    In Reply to Thomas Clarke


    On the matter of legally withholding information

    There are always possible reasons for short-term withholding information. More than that is not allowed by financial regulation


    While what you state here is true for a publicly traded company on a stock exchange, this is not the case for an LLC such as [lexicon]IH[/lexicon]. They only have to tell their shareholders. All depends on where the company resides.


    http://www.bizfilings.com/delaware/incorporation.aspx


    Register in a tax efficient location and the amount of information you are required to provide can be minuscule.


    Kind Regards walker