"Sentient may not want to go beyond the 20%."

No offense DCFM, but you're beginning to sound like JC.

Yes, Sentient does have some self-imposed limitation at 20% (related to some Canadian securities law filing requirement), but there are plenty of other institutional shareholders like Van Eck, Sprott, Gilder Gagnon, Vanguard, BlackRock, State Street, and others.

Like I said, if I were running this company, I would have called every single instituional shareholder and discussed Kaiser's article and the likelihood that this style of excessive hedge fund smashing...er...trading was having on AUMN and the opportunity it was creating to average down at $2.16/sh.

Furthermore, if I were Sentient, and had watched their 20% stake drop 88% since the merger, concluding that any decline of that magnitude should only be associated with a 50% decline in gold/silver (not likely), or a mine collapse in Valardena (hasn't happened), then I would immediately figure some way to rewrite that 20% limitation and then place an open GTC 5 million share "block" order at the depressed bid price and give the shorts something serious to think about.

Silverbull50