IESV Message Board - Msg: 24068166

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : IESV

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

From: Purl Gurl	11/19/2007 3:03:09 PM
	of 87

Response From Intrepid Despite my insulting tirade, a wonderful response from Intrepid. This is verbatim from Steve Ellis. ____________ Dr. Schilitubi, I actually agree with several of your points and the data on reverse splits is indisputable. I believe that the number of reverse stock splits that fail or lose 50% or greater of their value is closer to 80%. I believe everyone at Intrepid would like to have the 3 million to be able to pay off Cornell. However, I also don't remember that there was a line of willing lenders or investors of any type who would finance the venture Intrepid embarked on 4 years ago other than Cornell. Alternative energy was not the buzz work[sic] it is today and certainly using anaerobic digestion to produce methane was viewed as a "been there done that and it didn’t work" technology. That said we all would like to move up the financial food chain and I can assure you that that is being diligently done by the new board. Back to reverse splits. Having spent nearly 40 years as an investor including 2 as an OTC trader for Merrill Lynch, 9 as a Vice President at Merrill Lynch's Private Client Group and 14 as Managing Director, Investments at USBank/Piper Jaffray I can nearly guarantee you that 90% of the companies that fail post reverse split would have failed anyway. There is just no evidence that reverse splits make failing companies good or good companies bad. Presently Intrepid has 3 institutional client that own shares. One is located in Japan; another is in Germany and the third in Canada. Our price simply does not allow us to attract Mutual Funds domiciled in the US nor to become listed on a major exchange i.e. AMX or NASD. A reverse split could assist in both of these. There has been a significant change in the management and focus at Intrepid within the last several weeks and regardless of the outcome of the upcoming vote I would urge you to see where this takes Intrepid. I don’t believe you will be disappointed. Oh, and I totally agree on the lawyer issue. Steve Stephen Ellis Financial Solutions Consultant sellis@intrepid21.com 208-529-5337 ____________ Rather clear this Steve Ellis knows his cow crap. Only point which I would contest is listing on the big boards. Artificially inflating share price through a reverse split to qualify for a big board listing is simply too much risk. There is too great of a risk of being delisted later because of a falling share price and inherent falling market capitalization. Being delisted from a big board is very bad news. I will share my thoughts with Steve Ellis. Purl Gurl

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next