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.

Non-Tech : Save The World Air Inc. (ZERO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Q. who wrote (157)	7/15/2000 7:03:55 PM
From: Q.	Respond to of 445

Peter, what does If it is not a fraud mean to you? Aside from the question of whether the product has any value, the other question is what exactly does the company own? ZERO doesn't have any revenues, so the only thing of value it might have is an asset. That asset would be rights. Rights to a product. So then, what sort of rights does it own? The answer is dubious. What the form 10 says is that Muller sold ZERO the "marketing and manufacturing rights" to a product, in return for: * 5 M shares of Mandalay Capital, * an IOU for $500,000, and * $10 royalty per unit sold. If ZERO never pays the $500,000 or if ZERO ever goes BK, Muller gets those rights back. This agreement was signed by Muller as both the seller and as buyer. That's the only agreement the company has, regarding rights. That agreement is the company's only asset that you can attempt to value the stock on. It's what you get for your $100 M market cap, when you buy the stock. Here's what the form 10 doesn't show: * It doesn't claim that the product has been patented. * It doesn't say that Muller has been awarded a patent. * It doesn't say that Muller has been assigned a patent by an inventor. * It doesn't show an agreement by which Muller obtained any rights, a patent or otherwise, from an inventor or other lawful owner. So what DID Muller sell to ZERO? To me, it isn't clear that ZERO really owns anything, even if it the product works. It isn't clear that the sales agreement between Muller and ZERO actually transferred anything to ZERO that Muller really owned.

To: Q. who wrote (157)	7/15/2000 11:25:17 PM
From: peter michaelson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 445

Ñ: You said Nine months from now, OTOH, it will be less than a buck. That's typical for "this kind of stock." That's all that matters to me. If you want to short at 14, or 7, or 2, you'll make money. It's just a matter of whether you want >93%, >86%, or >50%, respectively. Other than that, you just have to wait. Inasmuch as I respect your work greatly, I am trying to get some insight into your trading strategies wrt these 'unlimited potential' shorts. Were ZERO to attain Visteon's market cap (ludicrous I know, but your benchmark) of about $2 billion, than ZERO would be at $130 per share. I know I could not maintain my confidence, or my net worth, through that kind of run-up. I would give up and cover, losing my shirt. So, what I do is short with caution, and watch carefully. The thing could certainly pop up to $20 (already made it to $14 once), and just as easily never see $7 again. It's the potential volatility that makes it tough. Thoughts? Peter