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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Transparent Flamingo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: peter michaelson who wrote (145)	4/15/2006 12:11:23 AM
From: SOROS	Respond to of 354

My guess is, quick access to initial money to help launch, and preliminary work handled in case other things are necessary that being public allows. Best part so far is, it seems all the potential negatives that can happen with early companies relating to lack of funds and financial woes, LBWR has trumped in spades. I remain, SOROS

To: peter michaelson who wrote (145)	4/15/2006 9:32:44 AM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 354

Peter, I think you know what happens with CEO's who go the public route. They are often led by promoters and vulture funders who promise them the sky, while typically grabbing and dumping a good piece of the pie. All you have to do is loos at the chart of a pink sheet IPO. Most start off with a rise to the dollar level and then rapidly descend to penny or sub-penny level. I've yet to speak to a pinkie CEO who hasn't gone through variants of these schemes. Some are crooks but some are just incredibly naive. There is a trial and error process before they realize they can do this "the hard way," without promotion, gradually building the business, starting with insider funding and then moving gradually to the public. (I've posted my conversation several times from years ago with a CEO who urged me to stay a shareholder in his company because the toxic funder had assured him that the toxic convertible features were merely fine print and that they were in "with him" for the long term. I quickly sold in the $10 range and it wasn't long before the company went under.) Creede has put together as thorough a DD on LBWR as I've seen in all my years of investing. It's objective yet positive. I believe he is in a better position to detail and has mentioned some of the problems that Dexter has faced. Further, Dexter had the advantage of being with a successful iteration of the business before forming LBWR. There is a need for public markets that provide formation and developmental capital for pink sheet companies. Per my previous post, I believe there is a valid need for pink sheet companies to thrive and be supported by the investment community. Most of us on this board would like to encourage transparency, open information and honesty, rather than promotion, promise and manipulation, which has led to the type of statements that you made in an earlier post. As you know, I often post against manipulation, whether that be by naked shorting, abuse by MM's and hedge funds, vulture financing, tout and insider dumping, or excess perks given to management. It is easier admittedly to hide much of this in pink sheets stocks. If we can foster a demand for disclosure, I believe we can change the trend or at least produce lists of stocks that are tiered above the companies that continue to do business the "old" way. I do believe that pinksheets.com has some good ideas with their tiered approach and hope that they are reading some of the excellent suggestions and comments that are being made on this board and on Creede's DD Maven board. I'd suggest to Creede that he forward a note to pinksheets.com as a way of getting them to work with us.