Janice, I was just going over my due diligence, and I was struck by some of the statements made in the paid Pennystock Report on the company.
One statement that really jumps off the page for me is:
If they promote the company's products to consumers as ably as they have promoted the company to investors, Cashco should attain its financial goals.
I was just compelled to point out that the jury is still out on that. An interesting statement about the AR Brooks deal caught my eye though:
When Cashco acquired A.R. Brooks in September, 1997, no doubt many shareholders rolled their eyes and said "kitty litter?"
I wonder how many alert readers out there can catch exactly what is curious about this statement that the company paid to have published? (I recall someone on one of these CSHK threads commenting that if they paid for it, it must be true.) Don't let me keep you in suspense, but the answer I am thinking of is in the Articles of Incorporation of AR Brooks itself. Why can you believe that AR Brooks didn't even exist as a corporation in the state of Florida until January 8, 1998, attested to by none other than Rebecca Jo Del Medico, that was filed 1/14/98? What an interesting chronology. Dare I dig deeper?
One statement that I thought rang out with logic was the syllogism offered by the following.
The products offered by Cashco's subsidiaries, the Year 2000 solution software and Paws Only kitty litter, will be available for purchase to nearly one-third to half of the population. Too often, businesses fail because they attempt to sell specialized products to a limited number of people.
What I am still trying to figure out is which half of the population is being excluded from buying any of their products. They don't seem to be making any exclusion in terms of the number of people that could buy their stock.
pennystock.com |
