Oh... my dear Pugs,
Yes I did present quite a bit of evidence to substantiate my position. But just so you can no longer say that you remain ignorant or what I have posted previously, allow me to refresh your "punch-drunk" memory.
1. Incessant Internet Chatter: The incessant posting out here on RMIL was brought to my attention by others who came across all of your wild claims about the the short squeeze. When I first began perusing this thread in October there had been close to 20,000 posts in under 4 months, far more than many of the Big Cap threads related to DELL, INTC... etc. GRNO was considered to be "Internet Hype" by the SEC based solely on less than 6,000 posting over the course of a year.
Again, THAT WAS INDICATOR #1.
2. Claims of a HUGE short position: When a company is introuble or management is seeking to dump shares on the market, they will create the false rumour of a huge short position against their stock and manipulation by everyone from Mmkrs to Elvis. I, and others, have brought to you the situation related to GIFS, where the same thing was alledged. Companies will imply that they have assets larger than actually exist, and operations that may not be as profitable as reported, if they exist at all. All of these seem to fit the current scenario we find with RMIL.
That's Indicator #2
3. Sudden digressions from current operations to enter into unaffiliated businesses.: Going from garment making to bottling water is quite a leap. Additionally, since OVIS elected to change both name and symbol, all shares of OVIS should have been called and exchanged for new RMIL. This should have most certainly given the company the ability to get a handle on how many shares it had outstanding. Has the merger been finalized?? I believe it required the placing financing with RMCW. Right?? This merger created the strong perception that OVIS/RMIL was scrambling to tread water. Considering that they still expect to have revenues of $12 million for 1997, I would think they would not be in a hurry.
It is $12 millon still, isn't it?? I haven't seen anything publically mentioned to alter this public perception. Any degradation of this revenue expectation requires an 8K filing to report the significant event. WHERE IS IT?? If it is true that the company doesn't have the money to have their financials audited, why have they continued to mislead shareholders to the status of cash reserves?? Anybody who bought shares at $4 has claim to class action status against the company for misrepresenting status.
4. THE DECREASING STOCK PRICE: Even though there were early problems receiving certificates for whatever the reason, the stock rose from .19 to $4 by early November. For the past two months, EVEN THOUGH many of those certificates were arriving in quantity, there was no indication of any additional pressure being placed upon shorts to cover. In fact, there was a 75% DECREASE in the price until December 22nd, when the SEC halted traded. This is strongly indicative of either pump and dump by Cartel members, or that there exists an additional source of shares entering the market either from additional REG S placements (not unknown to this managment team), or from short-selling against restricted stock (eg: GIFS/Mo Zayed).
THIS IS INDICATOR #3 and by far the most pertinent
But hell Pugs, I could go on, but then you've heard all this before. I'm posting it for easy reference to others. I have opined that all is not as it seems with the claims made by RMIL.
People attempting to analyze this company and this discussion should ask themselves where the original belief that a 4 million share short position existing in RMIL, originated from. Was it alledged by the company??? Or was it the independent analysis of Riley, yourself, and others of the Cartel aristocracy??
Despite being presented apparent information regarding the actual status of many of RMIL's present operations, you continue to push the Short squeeze scenario and state that fundamentals aren't relevant. Buy financial filings are relevant and they are what the SEC is looking at.
But then again, I understand why it is so difficult to plead a case for the Yeas since there exists a lack of credible evidence to support your case. It is much easier to pull a Johnny Cochcrane and attempt to divert the "juries" attention through character asassination and attempts to distract from the pertinent facts of the case, namely, that the company is under investigation for apparent failure to properly represent current assets and operational status.
YOU AND I BOTH KNOW THAT....
************
So...
Home..... Home on the range,
Where the psychics and the hypsters all play..
Of RMIL never is "herd"(sic)
A discouraging word...
as the shareholder's $$$'s blows away...
************
Take care Pugs... see you on the 7th of January.
Regards,
Ron |
