Hey Sargent,
Thanks for coming over here. I'm going to take a stab at your comments. I have only recently started looking at APXR and have a small position.
I bought into it recently on the basis of peceived value. That is, the MacKenzie pipeline looks like it will be approved. If that happens, the interest that APXR claims to have would represent a huge multiple bagger potential, likely in a buyout.
I realize that this is extremely speculative. I often post that every penny stock can be bashed. Perhaps, you'd like me to prove this by your having the courage to detail a couple of penny stocks in which you would speculate. Let's see how you do in judging stocks, that is stocks, not just bashing 1 penny stock by looking for minutiae.
After all, you spend a good part of your life bashing APXR. Is there a particular reason? Are you owed money? Have you lost money on the stock?
You don't really have to answer but it may shed some light on your credibility. This stock is not sufficiently in the public eye that it needs its own personal crusader.
Now as to the Sgt's charges - Again, I am new to this company and I would hope that others who have followed it for a long time would be better able to provide some of the answers to the Sgt's charges.
With respect to what happened in 1997, it's interesting but I don't see it as particularly material to the current conditions. The company was pretty much worthless with no prospects in 1997, not much more than a shell with a possibility. Today, as mentioned above, it is a speculative, yes speculative, venture that, if the MacKenzie pipeline is approved, should provide some nice multi-bagger potential.
The filings don't indicate any major current fraud or over spending. The numbers that you raise are tiny compared to the potential. Again, I'm not saying I have the answers but the PR's seem to indicate that we are talking about a stake that has a potential value significant enough to make this a multi-bagger, based on a present value analysis.
In other words, I know that you are emotionally involved in your bashing of this company. If you would take a deep breath and realize that most here know there is an inherent risk in owning a penny stock, then you would understand that most of us really don't care about a few pennies taken from the til if the payoff is in the millions. It's perhaps not nice but it's the name of the game. Issuing restricted stock does not affect the float at this point. That's not to say that issuance of stock should be ignored. However, as I am saying, you seem to focus on the tree and miss the forest. Your emotional involvement finds some pennies but you miss the possible dollars.
Are salaries earned? Are cars justified? Are home offices really necessary? These are questions that can be raised about almost any company. I'm not just talking about penny stocks now. Do I have to bring up the great companies such as ENRON, MCI, Global Crossing, TYCO, etc., etc.,
The WTRG lawsuit is for frankly chicken feed and you raise it as if APXR is to be found liable. Both companies have issued PR's and filed pleadings. No matter what it comes down to chicken feed or what comes out at the other end of the chicken. Do you really want to focus on this to the extent that you have posted perhaps 50 times about it on RB? Is this how you want to be remembered in your career as an incipient, but persistent but somewhat limited in scope, basher?
The issue of whether they are current in their filings is, I will agree, important. They filed for the Q ending 9/30/2005 on 11/23/05. Clarification from the company or from those who have followed the company for a longer time is welcome here. To me, that's the only issue that you raise that really has any bearing on this as a very speculative multi-bagger potential and I welcome your raising the issue. I don't think you had to post it 15 times. A couple of times on each message board is really enough. Over here, it's called spamming and is a TOU violation.
With respect to the issue of back payments on the properties. This is again to focus on the tiny, while missing the big picture. You seem to want to do this as if you are hunting for something with a magnifying glass. I mean come on $2300. Damn, that comes down to about $5 a post for you on RB. Is this really what you wish to base your bashing career on? Is a magnifying glass really necessary for everyone to understand that this is a penny stock with risk, but with possible huge potential?
The balance sheet comments. It won't surprise anyone here, I believe, to know that the balance sheet sucks and that APXR has debt. Damn, Sargent, don't they teach you to think? This is a penny stock. IT has risks. If the pipeline comes through, the relatively small debt will be gone and the return should be huge assuming their PR's are accurate.
They issued shares for about .04. That doesn't seem so bad. They are probably restricted shares. Most of these penny stocks have to pay off in shares because, guess what, they have no cash. They have perhaps $100 million in potential assets but are cash poor. Is that a surprise to anyone? No, you don't have to be a genius to determine that. THAT'S WHY THE STOCK IS SELLING FOR A FRACTION OF ITS POTENTIAL VALUE!!
I believe I've covered just about all the points you raise. Not bad for a newbie to the stock. I welcome other comments as I said. You mention some other shares issued to management, perhaps to consultants. I'm often opposed and comment unfavorably when this happens. But, it does happen and people do expect to be paid. You have not posted anything was criminal or even a violation of the SEC acts. You, in a rather timid fashion, raise some issues and ask the reader, in a rhetorical way, by ending your few rather meaningless words with a question mark.
It would be like me posting
Sgt Parker, paid basher?
Sgt. Parket, a bit of a fruit?
Sgt. Parket, OCD poster?
Sgt. Parker, lost his stripes and now in check?
I'm not saying any of that is true or false. I know absolutely nothing about you. But by posting as such, I can in a rather cowardly fashion present some questions that may cause a reader to question your credentials. |
