Mortgage Bankers Holding Corp (MBHC) Message Board

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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Mortgage Bankers Holding Corp (MBHC)

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: fla.trader who wrote (1003)	4/21/1999 11:30:00 AM
From: CIMA	Read Replies (1) of 1241

I called the company and had a rather lengthy conversation with Kevin Maloney earlier this morning. He commented that the recent litigation with Growth Fund is being worked through "amicably" with lawyers from both sides. He felt the issue was possibly settled yesterday when MBHC delivered a Series B Preferred stock certificate in order to settle the Growth Fund claim against previous MBHC management. He added that this stock has no dividend, no vote and no conversion privileges so it will not affect the operation of the company in any way. In regards to the value stated in the last MBHC press release equated to the Growth Fund investment, he stated that the figures used were taken out of court documents provided by Growth Fund. In regards to how much common stock is issued and outstanding he estimated the fully diluted and public float number to approximate 16,650,000 shares. This includes the 4M contested shares issued by previous management which he thought had likely been sold into the market already and which I assume was responsible for the low share price and the buying opportunity we all enjoyed a few months back. I was impressed with him and felt he was being forthright and honest. He alluded to some very positive events that he hoped would occur in the next 4-6 weeks which investors would be very happy with. He added that he felt the stock was cheap at these levels. He also stated that management would not be affected by internet chat sites and they would be 100% focused on running the daily affairs of the company, though he thought the post in question was irresponsible and I might add, somewhat misleading. My problem with your post is that it is blatantly biased or unbalanced. There are two sides to every story and you present only one of those sides with sketchy and possibly inaccurate details. It reads as though you have an agenda to slam this company and it's current and/or past management. Why? What is your purpose in taking such a biased view? I have another call in to him to check out the auto and insurance side of their operations which you claim are no longer operating. I appreciate the heads up but would like to know where you're coming from.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next