[Info -- maybe]
Dear DGIV Thread,
yesterday (well, actually the day before yesterday now that I look at the time) I got an e-mail from somone who noticed I had called Norman "short-sighted" and that person went on to mention a few things that he thought were suspicious about DGIV. I'm afraid I responded to this person in somewhat the same manner I'd responded to Norman and automatically assumed he was a nay-saying shorter. Naturally, I was forced by my commitment to DGIV to be nasty. Anyway, I subsequently got a follow-up reply from this person today (I mean yesterday/evening) and it was not vindictive or ugly as I had expected and hoped (not that I'm masochistic--I just like a good sparring match in which I think I can at least survive if not prevail). Turns out this person had (upon giving them a second look) some valid concerns.
So I changed my tune, actually spend some money doing some real DD of my own (trying to contain my self-satisfaction here) and learned something. I have decided to share with you all my second response to this person. It's long, so if you're already wheezing you better click here. On the other hand, you might find something in it that actually passes as info. Finally: Please clarify any points (you regular, more knowlegable and serious posters) that I've missed or mixed up...
******** e-mail response to XXXX follows, that person's part in "quotes" *****
"Thanks for the reply. I was amused by your assumption that I may be
short."
XXXXXX,
I regret (a little) the tone I took with Norman and with you. I have
been at this awhile--not grizzled, but not new either--and I've seen
too many posts from "naysayers" that hold firmly to one or a few
negative (or potentially negative) issues or pieces of information
associated with a given company. They can't be talked out of their
positions and I really get the impression they're simply contrarily
minded, and/or like to go against the grain of the predominately
positive thread they've come to address just to stir things up,
and/or derive some pleasure from making people repeatedly defend their
positions, or do this so others will perform their DD for them,
ad infant-item, etc. It's all in how one presents their questions.
In retrospect, I can't say your e-mail yesterday exactly fit the mold.
But I was in a mood, and I too quickly dismissed you. Since you didn't
come back at me with anger, I accept you're actually normal (given my
standards, however, that may not be considered high praise). BTW: it would
have been alright with me if you were a shorter, so long as you declared
it. Again, I admit to something of a knee-jerk reaction when I suspect
a short in sheep's clothing. Seems I misperceived your attire.
"I thought I had read every single thread. I even searched SI for
references to Merrill Lynch, and found nothing on the SI thread to
confirm what the IR guy told me. I assumed that DGIV and the longsters
were just holding back to avoid panic selling."
The Merrill Lynch backing was hinted at a couple of weeks back. Not sure
why it had to be a hint, but I believe it was because the hinters were
concerned that overtly revealing the information might make them a target
of the SEC. Don't know why World Group feels free to divulge. I will
advise the hinters that such is the case (or that is to say, I'll say
you say it's the case--unless I call World myself and get the same
declaration). For my money, if it's true (and since the time I got the
"hint" I've assumed it was true) that's pretty damn good news, and much
better than having Dharma, as you imply--except you think there's still
a Dharma connection. I swear that connection was reported on the thread
to be defunct some time back. Sorry you missed it. Regarding Dharma/Dharmala,
the internet link to "Dharmal" was provided:
dharmala.com.hk
Granted, if you go there you see Dharmala but not Dharma. I can't really
consider that something sinister. Probably just their abbreviation for
US business. Who knows? You can call (get their Hong Kong number from
the above website) and find out if it sufficiently bothers you.
There was an online chat tonite at another location (not SI but I don't
have the address in front of me--it's the talk of the SI thread today/nite
though) with Roger Templeton, who is DGIV's PR (Markcom?) guy. He answered
a collection of investor questions. He stated that they have not drawn any
money from Dharma and will not need to. As it was explained on the thread,
it was a timing issue. Jim Chin (and other DGIV principals?) made funding
arrangements with Dharma at a time when they seemed to offer the best
deal available. But, the landscape changed and, presumably, better offers
surfaced--Merrill Lynch perhaps.
"I'm not short, and I'm no longer long. Got out yesterday at 7. I
guessed the price would drop today, and so it did."
Very good timing Mark. In all sincerity, congratulations. One point
though: If the price had not dropped today, I seriously doubt you
would have told me you had guessed that it would. Be honest now...
"I still have not been able to find any information about JD
International, and I searched the Internet high and low. And I searched
for the relationship between Dharma Gropu and Dharmala Capital. Seems
like the link was created by the threadsters. I am new at penny
stocks. Perhaps what I'm learning is that some threadsters do not have
ethics when it comes to organizing and working the public mood about a
stock. It appears to be working quite favorably for many with the right
technology, and lots of time to play the game."
I think your suspicions about the "threadsters" are wrong. But I can't
say I blame you if you are indeed just getting started. You might be
all the more suspicious if you had accumulated some significant experienc
in the pennies--clearly the majority of them, if not crooked, will amount
to nothing in the end and serve primarily to provide the most savvy (un-
scrupulous?) investors and/or scam artists and/or pump-and-dump professionals
(I abuse the term, or rather they do) to make killing after killing. But,
here's where I start to appreciate your questioning. I took the challenge
and went back to the original press report. JDI was said to be in Laguna
Hills, CA. I just now got the area code (949) and then called information
to get JDI's number: 714-831-8876. I called, expecting to get an answering
machine, but instead a man answered and he had a (chinese?) accent. I
asked if this was JDI and he said it was. I asked who he was and he said
the proprietor. I said it sounded like a personal residence and he said
it was (didn't at least pretend it was exclusively an office--which is
what I had conjured up in my mind). I said I was an investor in DGIV and
was just checking things out (a little belatedly, but I'd assumed from
others posted info all was on the up and up). I asked him if they'd been
acquired by Digitcom and he said yes. I asked him if their name would be
changed to Digitcom or would they keep the JDI title (like a wholly owned
subsidiary might) and he said they'd probably get renamed. I asked how many
employees were there. He said they were all part of DGIV now (the only
answer I got from him that might be construed as evasive). So I asked how
many people worked for JDI before it got acquired. He answered: 2. After
that I thanked him and said good night. Oh, yeah. I asked him if he was
actually IN Laguna Hills since information had identified the "949" as
that area's code but then gave me a "714" number as the area code for
his location. He said the phone company is in the process of changing over.
I was pleased with myself for being suspicious and catching that potential
disconnect, but he had to go and ruin it with a legitimate answer.
My intial reaction was, "well, JDI was not such a terrific acquisition, as
I initially assumed." But then I went back to the press release, and reread
it. It did emphasize that an important part of the acquisition was getting
David Wong. I assume that's who I spoke to--hence the Chinese accent. You
can probably verify this tomorrow for yourself by calling. I'm satisfied
that's who it was--I had asked him at the begining of the conversation
and conclude he was justifiably wary since I hadn't identified myself
at that point. The rest of the press release focuses on the overseas
connections and presence. I won't (don't have the bandwidth or driving
desire) verify these, but I suspect you can if you choose. My current
assumption is this--yes, relatively speaking (or compared to what I'd
imagined) JDI was not your typical "acquisition." On the other hand, I
don't see the press release either exaggerating or fabricating any aspect
of that acquisition. Granted, DGIV presented it in as positive a light as
they could--but I don't know any company, BB or Bluechip, that does not
do the same. And that's my impression of all the DGIV press reports. They're
telling the truth in a way that reflects well on the company and its
operations. That's what it's supposed to do--DUH. I have seen enough
press releases that actually stink from the get go and are obviously done
either by out and out con artists or very unsophisticated PR people--and
the two usually are connected. Your response might be: so DGIV has
orchestrated a more sophisticated con job. I can only answer that if this
is true, they are fooling people who are not only more intelligent than I
(and hey, it's pretty obvious I'm intelligent--isn't it?) but people who
are very serious and skilled about doing DD. Lucky for the thread followers
these people have elected to share what they've found. (Guess I'm a
pollyana kind of guy. Might as well shoot me now. <g>)
"Well, if DGIV is legit, great. I made money, sold and protected my
capital. It's a fasinating story, perhaps I'll find my way back in,
someday."
I, obviously, think it is legit. I very much appreciate your keeping a
civil tongue/keyboard and, whether you meant to or not, for encouraging
me to independently get an answer to at least one of your questions. Though
it would have been much more satisfying if I'd found that JDI was some
"conglomerate," that--on further analsysis--would not really fit because
it would have made DGIV much more attractive to many more people by now.
I believe DGIV is just, in some respects, getting going and, in many more
respects has come a long (as opposed to a short) way.<g>
(Not sure if <g> is supposed to mean I'm laughing at my own joke or I want
you to know I was just joking. Now these are the kind of sophomoric--oops,
I mean philosophical--dilemmas I adore!)
"Thanks for your time and perspective, and the humor."
You're welcome. Thanks for being a good sport and giving me a second chance
to be one.
"Sincerely,
XXXXXXX" (name not used since this was a private e-mail to me)
Ditto, except
Dedrick
P.S. It's too late and I've typed too much to go back and check either my grammar or typing or spelling. I'm guessing you'll be tolerant. |
