Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 6144x7680 Scale: 100% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnailicon minus sign

Article text

MUTUAL INVESTMENT AND PRO-
VIDENT COMPANY, LTD.
Mr J L. Harcus secretary pro tem of the
above company, writes -
Sir,-Re your criticism of the prospectus of the Mu
lual Investment and Provident Company,Ltd , I beg to
advise you that space would not permit me to in
clude the reports made on the timber by most valued
experts. However all the estimates, are made by ex-
perts and I had mentioned in my prospectus that their
reports were available tor inspection at the offices of
the compiny
The estimate ot the limber value was arrived at on
the basis of an anticipated return of 15s per 100 super
feet. As a matter of fact all timber contained on the
companies properties would return betweenl 20s and 30s
per 100 super feet and would average at most be
tween 8s mid 10s per loo to recover and land in
Sydney, which would leave a. net profit as follows -
VALUE OF TIMBER
Recovery. c.i.f............................................P8,434,000
Return, at P.1 per 100 super feet...............17,010 000
Net profit.....................................................P8,576 000
The c.I.f. estimate may be correct, but how
is that estimate arrived at? That is what
tho public should know, so that those ac-
quainted with the trade may check the figures
and state whether the proposition is what it
is represented to be