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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Rocky Mountain Int'l (OTC:RMIL former OTC:OVIS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ellen who wrote (32593)	1/3/1998 9:09:00 AM
From: TideGlider	Respond to of 55532

Ellen: >>>Lotta BS....deflects the concentration on FLA...some have stated the fundamentals are not important. If they know anything at all perhaps they see a problem with fundamentals. Just my take...<<<< This post of mine refers to those that have said fundamentals don't matter. They do matter any longer. I have to disagree strongly on that point. Some are implying that they know things that are very crucial, new information....everyone will be surprised. Yet they don't state anything.....at all. I think posts like that are very dangerous to individuals that may take it to heart. About a squeeze...should a squeeze be executed, with no fundamentals the price will crash very fast no matter how high it is taken. There will be people hurt very badly that buy in higher. There is no such thing as a controlled sell off. Who will be first? It would be a rush for the door. All want their money first. Without concern for what they tell each other. Another thought. Maybe the squeeze has already come to pass. The stock was swiftly taken 10X up. That rivals the famed Resorts squeeze. It may have peaked already and the lack of financials statements that would allow for evaluation have allowed it to run lower. I am curious to see real news releases and SEC filings rather than people alluding to vague comments and speculation in regard to nearly everything under the sun. I believe that due to the SEC investigation as well as the new NAZ rules regarding up to date financials that information allowing people to evaluate this stock and others will be available shortly. There will be little need for the controversy. I am sure there will always be those that aren't satisfied, Pro or Con with what is presented. The facts are as they are.....people just need to see them. If the future of the company (business) looks good the price will go up. If not they can just sit on the stock. You can't force a buy anymore than you can force a sell. If there are no sellers on the open market they don't have to raise the bid. There will just be no sales. If a Cartel controls the float, the only sales can come from the Cartel to the Cartel. The company needs to show success in order to draw outside bidders. That will happen if the news is good and includes details of sales and reasonable projections. JMHO Best of luck T.G.

To: Ellen who wrote (32593)	1/3/1998 9:35:00 AM
From: TideGlider	Respond to of 55532

Elle: The following is neither pro or con. I believe it is fair discussion of certain "short squeeze" dynamics. We all have seen many of the others and perhaps this also. November 12, 1997 deputy: Mike city: Kalamazoo, Mi subject: Short Squeeze DD comments: I have been reading some Internet message boards that talk about short squeezes in two stocks: EUTO and RMIL. Does a short squeeze really exist in these stocks or is it just hype to inflate their prices? Message posters claim illegal shorting. SD Reply: For a "bonafide" short squeeze to occur, someone or lots of investors need to buy a stock "long" and remove those shares from the public float, typically by taking physical delivery of certificates. This is done to deprive short sellers of collateral stock required of them and force the short seller to buy-back at higher prices. Nevertheless, professional short sellers do have their ways of continuing to sell short or avoid "buy-ins" ad-infinitum. This is also referred to as "illegal" short selling and is a topic for a future Stock Detective report.. Other than encouraging long-term shareholders to request physical delivery of their share certificates, the only feasible defense against the ravages of small-stock short sellers is for a company is to achieve financial success and garner widespread support at comparable market valuations. For well-intentioned upstarts and development stage companies with little or no fundamental strength (earnings or equity) short sellers can easily spoil the party. On the other hand, for scam stocks, short sellers sometimes show uncanny ability to bring inflated or manipulated shares back to reality. - S.D.

To: Ellen who wrote (32593)	1/3/1998 12:55:00 PM
From: michael d kugler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 55532

<I think they probably have been doing just that. As evidenced by the post telling us the 8K was filed with the SEC Friday, Jan. 2.> An 8-K only alerts us to some material change happening within the company. It is not the 10-K all of us are waiting for. Has the merger failed? Are there new auditors? Is the company changing its name and symbol again? And there is no filing on Edgar. It would appear that the reports of any financial filings are quite premature.