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 : MSU CORP-----MUCP -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (5670)	2/24/2000 5:27:00 PM
From: Carolyn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6180

I didn't know that. But why wouldn't they trade on the London Exchange as a US corporation? (I don't understand all these little details, so please forgive me.) Yes, I remember well when GNET was in the 40s not so long ago! Hopefully never again.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (5670)	3/26/2000 2:41:00 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6180

Hey Ray-Jay.. (aka: Allen Lieberman or Al-len from the RMIL thread) ragingbull.com Kiss my @ss... It pretty obvious you don't know what the hell you are talking about. You want to talk to me, come on back here to the SI thread and go a few rounds with me. Any idiot (except you) knows that a company is not able to make the public aware of a private offering since that equates to advertising of unregistered securities. They certainly can't do it via a press release. That is why it is called a "PRIVATE OFFERING" and not a public offering, ya bozo. Public offerings are done by prospectus and involve fully registered securities. Private offerings involve debt debentures or restricted securities that must be registered, and/or require a waiting period of 12-24 months before they can be sold into the public market. How do I know this? Because that is one of the very charges the SEC filed againt GRNO, pal!! They claimed that GRNO's CEO was using my newsletter to advertise their limited partnerships which were considered unregistered securities since they offered warrants and conversion into 144 stock after a period of two years should the LP partner opt to do so. (that was not the case, btw). So it is YOU who is misleading readers of the MUCP thread on RagingBS, not myself or others. Especially since I have FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE and you have nothing but the same old BS you have been spewing since you crawled out from under your rock on the OVIS/RMIL thread and played lap dog for Roland Breton and RileyG. As for whether or not the offering (assuming the rumoured information is correct) is dilutive... even you SHOULD have enough sense to realize that if the company offers stock priced above its current market price, then it is raising more money AND INCREASING ITS NET BOOK VALUE, than is perceived by the general market. That means it is NON-DILUTIVE... plain and simple. I don't care if I would own a smaller percentage of total outstanding shares (fully diluted) since the net book value of my equity stake has been increased by sale of the company's shares at a price above market price. It is a very simple equation to figure out when you gauge what the value of each share is should the company be dissolved and its assets distributed to shareholders. (of course, debenture holders would have first dibsies I believe) It is only dilutive were the company to raise money priced at $3/share during a period that the company's stock was trading at a price OVER $3/share. That is clearly not the case at present. Maybe if you had used your head a bit more, instead of killing your brain cells ounce by ounce, you'd have realized this. You're a BS'r Allen Lieberman. And I look forward to the day that you receive a subpoena from the SEC over your involvement in the RMIL scam. And I hope my comments are read and observed by an SEC attorney who acts upon that recommendation. But more likely they just figure that there were no innocent investors in RMIL and so you all got what you were asking for.