JScott - Jon why would you have posted the following at RB in response to my post regarding the shares? Ignoring things won't make them go away and until the audit is complete, the stock issue is still a concern, although not to you. I was answering to others who have legitimate concerns, or who have been screwed before and are getting the jitters over this matter. However, I do appreciate knowing where I stand with you and you can be sure I shall not bother you with any other DD I come across. :-)Jacalyn M. Deaner
Now what part of that post was innacurate? I just think you should be realistic in this matter, and all investors should be aware of what to expect realistically in the event the stock information is not all ROSY amidst all the other ROSY news, alliances, partnerships, advertisers radio, television, revenues etc. - people will panic sell or panic hold at the least hint of sour news out of ignorance or emotion, dropping focus on the BIG PICTURE, and I answered from the perspective of someone who is a LONG, but who is aware of what to expect, if the stock report is not as positive as I want it to be, OK?...
I posted facts pertaining to the stock splits and reverses, I did not make anything up, and I stated my reasons I would NOT want to see a stock split nor reverse. Perhaps you could post why that concern is something to be ignored and substantiate your position with examples of companies I could study that have had the same experience with Transfer Agents and unknown shares, that way I could have an idea of what to expect both pro and con. Rather than ignoring, you could be educating, after all I thought we were all in this together. Otherwise, you had made the correct decision to put me on your ignore list, I would hate to be the one to ruin your day. Perhaps it would be better if I put my position as a REALISTIC LONG. GOOD BYE J SCOTT and good luck to you too!!
By: JScott
Reply To: 16399 by invisible1
Saturday, 31 Jul 1999 at 12:41 PM EDT
Post # of 16459
Invisible1= IGNORE
after you read my post as follows:
By: invisible1
Reply To: 16395 by wolfie24
Saturday, 31 Jul 1999 at 12:05 PM EDT
Post # of 16459
Wolfie - I agree with your accounting 101; however there SEVERAL splits/reverse
splits when that Transfer Agent was involved - so technically some of the numbers
may be skewed - 10 for 1 split, then a reverse then another reverse all within one
year; since there were no filings, it is impossible to get an accurate number of what
was issued and what was authorized; which is why GAAY has invited the auditors in
to rectify the numbers, in preparation for filing with the SEC and to assure
shareholder valuation.
The only thing I DO NOT WANT TO SEE is a reverse split or any split at this
point. In my opinion it would destabilize shareholder confidence, and they have
VERY SELDOM worked for companies, hasn't even worked for GAAY when they last
did it in July 1998. The only thing that is going to move this stock is revenues,
contracts, implementation of acquisitions and partnerships - just what management is
doing.
If there were, however, a serious dip, I would accumulate should that occur. I have
never been able to get hold of the Attorney at Triangle and have left messages for
him to no avail. Not that I have any new questions for him; but I would like to hear from
him what he expects from the auditors, realistically.
The stock matter is my only concern with this issue, FWIW.
Jacalyn M. Deaner |
