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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Nuvo Research Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: wilyolvet who wrote (11910)	1/21/2003 11:27:56 PM
From: axial	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14101

Wily, I share the desire to speak respectfully. "i believe your survey consisted of about 30 people who actively read the SH thread..." You are essentially correct - it was people on SI and SH, and the total was in the mid-30's. I disclaimed it as a "scientific" survey, right from the beginning. Still, one has to wonder at the relative authority of those voices, as opposed to your single opinion. I should mention that those voices included negatives, too: not just the comments of the braying jackasses who make it their business to bad-mouth DMX on the basis of their personal feelings, as opposed to a legitimate inolvement with the stock. "while i believe that a rights offering is a good solution in that all shareholders are treated equally on the surface(actually i lobbied for it a year ago and i spoke out against the last placement on nov 29th), i have to wonder if all shareholders will be in a financial position to write the cheque and if they are all privy to the same info as those making the deal" An RRSP investment loan can be had at prime, or less. The interest costs for a non-RRSP loan are tax-deductible. Interest rates are at historical lows. You obviously believe (I won't bother with the quote), as do I, that RK has the goods. "why 13 million shares at today's prices?...why not 2 or 3 or even 4 million shares on a rights offering...that way, the little guy has a much better chance of writing his/her share of the cheque required to avoid dilution which means there is a much greater chance that everyone is treated equally.....once the news is out, then do a big placement at much higher prices which at least lets the little guy have his win before the "REAL" money has to be raised ...why the sudden shift from "as few shares as possible" to "hey, lets issue 13 million just before the news" The idea that 3 or 4 million shares will do it is based on what projections of cash needs? If that was the case, why not just extend Acqua again? Any method of raising cash has a workload attached to it. After the release of news, when (presumably) Pennsaid production will be in gear, WF10 will be in the hands of the FDA, the UK distributor will be at work, and the US distributor will be announced and waiting for product - at that time, you want DMX to do another financing? I can guarantee you that such a move will be met with as many complaints as the existing plan. Any such additional distribution would have to be underwritten by someone - given RK's aversion to Bay Street, can you promise that you won't have the same objections, then? "those that think that the stock market is fair to all will find my thinking hard to believe....i can accept that...my experience has been that the market is anything but fair" "...the market is anything but fair." I buy that, big-time. However, the inference that RK has designed this process to benefit some unknown party, or parties remains unproven. The contention that RK's methods are necessarily more devious, and self-aggrandizing than alternative arrangements (especially snort! Bay Street) is valid, as far as it goes: a supposition. RK and Bay Street don't see eye-to-eye. That is commonly known. The stories I've heard say that they don't like her. They also say that the reason is that she won't "play ball", down in the trough. I accept the fact that bit players, like many on this thread, often get screwed by the market. It remains to be seen what the distinction (if any) exists between RK and Bay Street. Perhaps there is no distinction, as you claim: perhaps they're all out to screw investors. But if there are no distinctions, there sure as hell are some differences. I certainly don't expect anyone from Bay Street to speak well of her, or her financing. What do I expect? Just about what I'm seeing. Regards, Jim