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 : ASHTON MINING OF CANADA (ACA) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bob Hack who wrote (3076)	12/3/1997 11:05:00 AM
From: Famularo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7966

>>> On another topic, it may be in ACA's principle shareholders interest to keep prices down. Why, because they raise additional financing by way of private placement with themselves. The lower the share price is when they do this, the more "percentage" equity they are getting in the company for a given dollar invested. No one would ever admit to this, I'm sure, but just plot the PP's on the chart and see where they land vis a vis the share price. I am wary of this practice whenever the principle shareholders control the company, as in Ashton's case. There is not much we as individual investors can do about this, just realize it and invest accordingly. <<< Good Point, I am also aware of these practices.

To: Bob Hack who wrote (3076)	12/3/1997 12:20:00 PM
From: Jadrew	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7966

Low Price for own Private Placement: Bob, I think your logic on this one is mistaken. Ashton's parent who controls 62% of ACA recently did a "rights offering" to raise additional capital ($15 million or so). The parent was willing to pick up all unexercised rights. I think (just check the past news releases) that most of the minority shareholders exercised their rights, keeping Ashton's parent ownership share at 62%. If additional capital is needed, I assume another rights offering would be issued. As for sneaking a private placement through with themselves, I don't fully know the security laws, but as a minority shareholder, I'd be suing the A__ off these guys if they were in posession of "insider information" that they didn't release to the public before pulling off a "self" private placement. ACA has not shown any inclination to do something like this (unlike numerous VSE companies, who seem to spend more time granting/re-setting their own options, then they do exploring).

To: Bob Hack who wrote (3076)	12/3/1997 10:04:00 PM
From: JKNF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7966

Bob you say "Unbribled enthusiasm, for entertainment purposes only." I'll admit, for them to come up with 10,000 diamonds might be asking for far too much, but if they only come up with 10% of the 10,000 that still equals 1,000 diamonds, does that sound far-fetched. I personally don't think so given the initial results from K14C. As for a private placement, I can't understand why everyone is talking about a new financing at this point and time, ACA just did a 15 million dollar financing just a short time ago, or has everyone forgot about that!!! That kind of money can't be burned up in two months time, can it??? Perhaps someone out there could fill me in on all this talk regarding a new financing. I do agree with you Bob, regarding the way the PP's are arranged!!! Best Regards John