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 : TSIG.com TIGI (formerly TSIG) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom who wrote (31645)	6/23/1999 9:20:00 PM
From: Ditchdigger	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 44908

Not that I know -buster

To: Tom who wrote (31645)	6/23/1999 9:23:00 PM
From: Suzanne Newsome	Respond to of 44908

Reality check for RB people. There is some misinformation on RB concerning Lifetime Learning that is so far off-base as to border on slander. Considering the frail condition the company is in, it is simply not acceptable to tolerate this version of somebody's fantasy life. So let us remind ourselves how the Lifetime Learning deal works. The National Music Foundation put TSIG and Lifetime Learning together. The NMF receives $.25 for every Music Card sold. In addition to introducing TSIG to LL which was a major step forward, TSIG stands to gain considerably if the musicians supporting NMF were to promote the Music Card. In the meantime, the NMF web site contains an active link to the MyMusicCard web site. Lifetime Learning is a company whose main business is developing educational materials for companies who want to get their message to school children. For example, they put "Weekly Reader" in the schools. In addition, they provide fund-raising opportunities to the schools through their use of their "agile and malleable" database. They can mail to a very large number of institutions by name. What did LL do for TSIG? According to Paul Henry (Yale'69), TSIG was one of a very few companies selected by LL to participate. There was an information packet developed by LL that was mailed to the schools which explained the Music Card. The packets cost money. Mailing the packets cost money. Was LL paid any money? It is customary to pay for goods and services provided by others. What will be the result of this huge mailing? That's a $64,000 question. . .or perhaps a $372 million question. In post #30182, I projected the gross profit for the Lifetime Learning deal. The card split between the schools and TSIG is $5/$5. The card costs pennies to produce. The cost of the Lifetime Learning mailing was $700,000 to $1,000,000. If you accept the super-conservative estimate in post #30182, the mailing costs were amortized over 10,000,000 cards which is $.07-$.10 per card. If you accept the "average" projection in post #30182, the mailing costs were amortized over 60,000,000 cards which is about $.01 per card. Regardless of the number of cards used to amortize the costs, the point is the costs associated with sale of the cards is very low. Another way of saying this is that the cards are very high margined. A very, very high percentage of the card revenue falls to the bottom line. I think anyone who makes a statement that it takes 30% of sales to produce the sales should take a second look. If you accept the super-conservative projection of $50 million in card revenue, the 30% "rule" implies costs of $15 million. If you accept the "average" projection of $300 million in card revenue, the 30% "rule" implies costs of $90 million. Whether the kids sell $50 million or $300 million worth of cards, where would $75 million of extra costs come in? The 30% rule may be incredibly accurate when selling widgets, but the card deal is rather unique. Regards, Suzanne

To: Tom who wrote (31645)	6/23/1999 9:37:00 PM
From: Johny Dancing	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 44908

I would bet we could now call this the LONG GONE BOARD. I guess long means at least 2 weeks??? To All: *STILL LONG BOARD* Sammie Ed. S. REW Martin Frankel Rich V$gas.Com Sword.Com Andy.com PDavid Zbyte.com phil.com JWC paullie Phxphenom MoneyBaggs.com Topfuel SDakota-98 ztect.com BTS (and about a dozen friends/relatives) !! PatT.com and friends Kipper Chuckr dennis1 TheStreet secureit Roger (from Raging Bull) Walter (a friend) teak and Clients Susie924 slaffe Boyd Zander chapin Freak Tompj Mylan David M. Boerman Marcus (from RB) Simo Magicrn Maryann M JSolo WVMayor BCEAGLES Oneway (and 4 friends) Johnas Michael E.Baldino john greg MskiHntr SamLBInj & friends, associates, relatives & employees... Hardy.com and friends Fuzzy Fred Thornell "VIPER" Paisano tfk Johny Dancing G-Rick (and 3 friends) Ellen (and edited to add what you did from #24078) now lets make a list of people who are lying about being longs Please CUT and Paste if you are NO LONGER A LONG! Please Copy and paste if you are LONG and NOT ON THE LIST!

To: Tom who wrote (31645)	6/24/1999 12:44:00 AM
From: cicak	Respond to of 44908

Hi Tom - <<Is there any detective work that can be done which would determine if PH is actually right, (and we are looking at a shareholder selloff), or, he is wrong, and that we are currently being shorted to death by one or more of the pp holders? I know your opinion on the subject, I was just curious if there was any ACTUAL PROOF one way or the other.>> Please review the discussion below on a legal discussion forum regarding the topic of short selling and private placements. One of the participants appears to be Joseph G. Martinez, VP/Counsel JMAR Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq : JMAR). I found it to be very interesting reading. biz.yahoo.com washlaw.edu For me, the highlights of the conversation were: ===================================================================== (1) "The first, more fundamental, legal reason is that the SEC has taken the position that shares which were owned but which were not freely tradable when the short was created cannot later be used to cover the short postion, even though they have subsequently been included in a resale registration statement or, if not, have run the Rule 144 holding period. Conceptually, the SEC takes the position that the shares which were later delivered to cover the short had to have been in existence and freely tradable when the short was created because that is the time they were "sold" publicly." (2) "A company noticed a substantial short position arise in its stock almost 1-1/2 years ago. The short represents about 4-5% of its float and about 10 times its daily trading. This occurred immediately following having done a private placement involving a little more than the number of shares in the short. The company agreed to and ultimately did include the private placement shares in an S-3 Registration Statement. The company strongly suspects, but cannot prove, that the buyer in the private placement did the short. The company's stock was at an all time high at the time of the private placement (and short) and has since dropped about 50%. The company would, of course, like to get rid of the short." (3) "Although we cannot prove who the short is and they deny it, I understand from NASDAQ that we cannot find out the identity of the short seller without a court order." ===================================================================== It seems to me that TSIG should consider the following: (a) Determine the short interest in the stock. I would think the TA would have this information. (b) If it appears that there is substantial shorting - seek the identity of the short sellers by court order if necessary - and determine whether any SEC violations occurred (i.e. covering a short with shares that were not freely tradable at the time the short was created - which was the scenario that Zeev seemed to describe): Message 10194331 Regards, Phil