Ned, I have a firm belief that no one posts on these boards without a financial reason.
Why would anyone waste their time posting on a stock that they have no financial interest in? You seem to know about the history of this shell in detail. You Keep close track on it. Watch its every move. Why? Most people who bash a stock mix fact with suggestion to put a negative spin on the stock. Lets take a close look at your post.
In point of fact, all good business people have successes, and this company hasn't had one. As I said earlier, Wilfred Shaw has never had a single business success, either privately or with a public company.
Most business people fail before they succeed. I know many of them. This is a suggestion on your part. Case in point Iomega a struggling company in the early nineties. Failure after failure then in the middle of 1994 they got it right. Pull up a 5 year of IOM and see it for yourself.
Actually, it has had at least four since I was first a shareholder. First it was an auto-wrecker; then it was a videogame retailer; then it was an auto service franchisor; then it was a pretzel franchisor. Now, I guess because the Internet is is in vogue, it is in the internet business!
In every instance, the stock goes up on huge volume and the imminent announcement of "good things." But the deal goes sideways in time, and the "management team" gets fired. Shaw then explains that they were to blame.
Here you suggest that the only reason that GURU.COM was merged into this shell is that it is in vouge.Tell me when was AUTO-WREAKER in vouge? Also you suggest that the stock will be doomed to failure forever no matter what.
This quote is very interesting. I've secretly suspected that Leroy is very close to Wilfred. Who's the "we" Leroy makes reference to here? Yeah, that's what I think
I'm laughing to hard to comment on this one. Anything to create doubt I guess.
I am neither long nor short this stock. I'd like to short it but you never know what kind of tom-foolery might propel it still higher.
Here you contradict yourself in an effort to suggest the only thing propeling the stock is tom-foolery.If you are so confidant the stock is doomed to failure why are you not short?
Finally, contrary to what Leroyt explains, company do indeed announce how they propose to pay for their acquisitions. Anyone who's investment for a month knows that. The reason I asked the question is because I suspect the company has no money.
I think anyone that has been investing for a week knows the acquisition
was a stock swap.The owners of a operating, profitable internet business got shares of a public shell. The share holders of the shell got a operating,profitable business. |
