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.

Technology Stocks : ACII - AmeriChip International, Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rhoshariasha who wrote (967)	1/23/2008 2:38:26 PM
From: BarclayDonaldson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2396

shane: Rhonda said that the shares issued after the R/S to pay down debt were Rule 144 shares, those shares carry a one year restriction. The shares that Marc/Ed granted themselves last year have a two-year restriction (according to Rhonda). Last May there was proposal to amend Rule 144 to reduce the restriction period to six months. sec.gov Last November, the rule change to reduce the restriction to six months was approved. sec.gov What we know about the O/S: - after the R/S on 8/13/07, there were 135,706,274 shares O/S - from the last 10Q: "As of October 15, 2007, 160,603,390 shares of $.001 par value common stock were outstanding" - last reported O/S from Rhonda (sometime in December) was 185M Some people may not be alarmed at these figures. Like TedM says, the share count effects EPS, and the share count keeps going up. Now factor in that these shares can hit the open market in six months instead of 12. There really is an urgency to start getting some significant LACC revenue, IMO, to keep up with the dilution. Then again, that's always been the case with ACHI/ACII and we all saw what happened to the PPS.

To: rhoshariasha who wrote (967)	1/23/2008 2:53:31 PM
From: rushlong	Respond to of 2396

Also, again this seems so obvious that it doesn't need to be mentioned but I guess it does. Whether or not a company has share holder meetings has nothing to do with how "secretive" a company is. A company could hold monthly meetings an still be largely secretive. The company is considering share holder meetings. Nothing has been decided yet. The company was talking to "legal" to get their input because there are sec laws about under what circumstances a public company must hold at least an annual share holder's meeting. They are also considering whether or not to include a "letter to share holders" in the 2007 annual report.