Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Microphonics Inc. (mrps) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Seeker who wrote (7188)	6/15/1999 6:41:00 PM
From: BudLong	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8189

To All, Regarding SSA: Since SSA came on board, the news releases have been well-written and professional, and have appeared with greater frequency, giving the stock price more upward push than it would have had otherwise. They have been doing their job, and a good job at that, IMO. The inaction on the part of senior management of the company in releasing financials is well beyond the control of SSA. There is nothing they can do about this. I have no idea why posters appear to hold SSA partially culpable for late financials -- why is this their problem? Guilt by association? If it is not widely known that the PR is being handled by "guys from a stock board," then this fact creates no adverse reflection on the company's appearance or image. How PR is handled lies outside the scope of normal DD by big money managers; many companies much larger than MRPS handle PR internally anyway. The only thing that could create a bad impression of the company regarding PR would be if the releases were poorly handled, which is not the case. How much better would you consider the decision-making process of the company if they had hired an established PR firm, paid them 10 times more (in cash and unrestricted shares), and received releases of equivalent quality? Would that have been a good deal or a bad deal for the company, and how would it have affected their bottom line? I think the company is getting good bang for the buck (or restricted shares, in this case). The only reason SSA ever entered this deal is because they wanted to maximize shareholder value, and the previous PR efforts weren't getting the job done. News drives the BBs, and the releases have been better and more frequent since they took over. Thus, regardless of the current share price, I still say that it's higher than it would have been without their efforts. I'm not questioning anybody's right to blame SSA when the stock price slumps in the market softness of the summer doldrums. But I do question the fairness of it... Bud