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: Suzanne Newsome who wrote (41722)	5/12/2000 3:31:00 PM
From: REW	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 44908

Thanks Suzanne, that follows my information on those topics from Henry also. A followup on the stock price and goodwill you mentioned. I also asked if the stock price might work better higher since it is the purchasing agent for the acquisitions. He agreed but added a what if the purchase is based on a forward date and base on the stock price at that point. Sounded good -- we'll see. He also stated the company did not want the price down but has no control over the investors. They will just continue to build TSIG.com and the stock will eventually react. "When TSIG, Affinity, and General Search are combined, the resulting company will be cash flow positive." TSIG.com also gets the cash in their banks. "Because of the synergy that TSIG can provide to Affinity, that revenue can be taken up to $60-70 million" Affinity operates on at least a 20% margin. Add to that the revenues and value added to GeneralSearch. Also the regular operating revenue TSIG.com would bring on it's own. "Henry said that Affinity was very experienced at marketing and implementation, General Search had very good technology, and TSIG could open doors." Here is a start as what areas are covered and how. It needs some work. Message 13517734 Bob

To: Suzanne Newsome who wrote (41722)	5/12/2000 3:56:00 PM
From: Tom	Respond to of 44908

Suzanne: Thank you very much for your informative post. eom. Tom

To: Suzanne Newsome who wrote (41722)	5/12/2000 4:49:00 PM
From: TOPFUEL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 44908

Henry pointed out that Affinity had $30 million in revenue and $6 million in profits The management of Affinity reported 1999 revenues of $22 million, with a pro forma pre-tax profit of $4 million (unaudited). The Affinity Group projects year 2000 revenues at $30 million, with profits expected to reach $6 million. Projected and Had two differnt things IMHO When I mentioned the Disney deal, Henry said he thought* it would be "quite a bit bigger."* He thought ??? SEC regulations still prohibit naming the investment bank. Apparently the gist of the regulation is that the SEC wants a company to raise the money, and then announce the bank. The SEC doesn't want a company's stock to run up merely on the identity of its investment bank. Henry said that there will be a registration statement in June or July with the name of the bank on it. Do not see how fiancing deal can be completed without reverse split in place and if TL is IBANK they do there finacing on a best efforts basis [It is easy for us to lose focus in this current environment in which the stock price is drifting downward in anticipation of the RS, no news is being announced, and a former vocal supporter is posting negative information. If the number of shares that have passed through Gordon's hands seems astronomical to you, please take a moment to divide $1,000,000 by $.04 per share. The result is 25 million shares. That is the number of shares any of us could have had if we had been able and willing to fork over a million dollars. I am told by other investors that Gordon has put multiple millions into this company. Am I perfectly happy about how the shares of this company have been used? No, but I prefer this to bankruptcy.] Read deeper into sec filings you may be suprised what you dig up

To: Suzanne Newsome who wrote (41722)	5/12/2000 6:49:00 PM
From: johngmack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 44908

Suzanne, [ no news is being announced, and a former vocal supporter is posting negative information.} I have to disagree with you here. I've been to St Pete and met the players. Got to know and communicate with a fair number of investors there also. Even watched Bernie in action. I posted last year that when evaluating people pay more attention to their action rather than their words. I didn't have to make the trip to understand the following: 1. Other than the vote for the RS, no other TSIG PR or announcement has been executed since January. 2. Sam's frequent posts and comments about outstanding share increases were valid. 3. Rob Gordon is good at bringing in opportunities, but has failed to demonstrate negotiating a good deal and executing anything. I'm still here with several hundred thousand shares, but my patience is wearing thin. The last week of June is the stay or go time for me. What ticks me off is this kind of posting-"and a former vocal supporter is posting negative information." Now Rich may not be the most skilled communicator in the world (as he has admitted), but that is a long way from posting negative information. WATCH THE ACTIONS. Other than the CEO, who has the ability to authorize new shares and get board approval? Where is the fiduciary responsibility to oversee to validate TSIG's finances. Who has the ultimate responsibility to ensure execution of business strategy. Who can validate the source of RG's funding for shares of TSIG? Too many holes here Suzanne. I have been around long enough to make my own opinions. Good business plan? Yes. Good partners? Yes. So what's the problem. It all trickles down to one person. I suggest this thread get over any hang ups it has as to how it receives commentary. The information is not the problem. Do your DD on the share trail. I still have a level of confidence that TSIG can make it, but not with RG in the picture. John

To: Suzanne Newsome who wrote (41722)	5/12/2000 11:42:00 PM
From: michael john stout	Respond to of 44908

yadda yadda yadda. More smoke and mirrors.

To: Suzanne Newsome who wrote (41722)	10/8/2000 9:35:01 PM
From: TOPFUEL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 44908

SEC regulations still prohibit naming the investment bank. Apparently the gist of the regulation is that the SEC wants a company to raise the money, and then announce the bank. The SEC doesn't want a company's stock to run up merely on the identity of its investment bank. Henry said that there will be a registration statement in June or July with the name of the bank on it. 3 months have gone bye where is it Suzanne.

To: Suzanne Newsome who wrote (41722)	12/17/2000 7:31:57 PM
From: TOPFUEL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 44908

SEC regulations still prohibit naming the investment bank. Apparently the gist of the regulation is that the SEC wants a company to raise the money, and then announce the bank. The SEC doesn't want a company's stock to run up merely on the identity of its investment bank. Henry said that there will be a registration statement in June or July with the name of the bank on it. where is that Ibank statement suzanne .like I said you never show ANY CONCERN.. Stock is at .50 and you said you are suprised its this low.. If your suprised its this low did it ever occur to you something may be wrong ..