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 : Corporate Vision (CVIA) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Milk who wrote (1553)	1/13/1998 12:26:00 PM
From: campe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6654

A bit confused... this Reg S was for their first aquisition and not merger related. From what I understood, CVIA is merging with WOTD and changing its ticker to WOTD. Then they will start aquiring profitable ma' and pa' businesses. JR brought up some good questions. What IS WOTD bringing to the table if in fact they don't have tangible assets? Is it just technical expertise if the field? And if so, can't you just hire a consultant? Couldn't CVIA have done this Reg S, say two months ago, on their own and followed thru with their business plan without WOTD? What does WOTD really do (currently) or were they created solely for the merger with CVIA? The few answers we get only prompt news ones;~)

To: Milk who wrote (1553)	1/13/1998 1:29:00 PM
From: Jim Armstrong	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6654

So-o-o-o, it sort of sounds like this to me. The only residual value in CVIA was the shell and the determination and expertise of one of the board of directors not to lose his investment in the enterprise. In WOTD, there is a modest sized tire business which has a willingness to grow, but not the capital. The two get together and develop what appears to be a viable path for growth into a larger business by acquisition. One small detail. Neither has the available money to do any acquiring. So, having agreed on the strategy, they work on a merger, meanwhile looking for a path for getting the capital to make it work. They have to make it work fast or the guy who's driving it will run out of money/energy and have to go on to something with greater promise. Hence, the Reg S approach, not ideal, but from a pragmatic standpoint, a way to move on. Izzat about how you see it so far? In the beginning, one of the deciding points for me to buy in was the fact that Jack had his own holding at something like .40. I figgered he'd work (and evidently has) like a Trojan to salvage that holding. As I thought about it a little more, I realized that stock price improvement was not the only vehicle for Jack to be rewarded for his effort in bringing the two companies together. The value of CVIA is basically whatever its value appears to be to WOTD, and that would reasonably include some compensation to Jack for his determined efforts and skid-greasing to bring the merger to pass. That weakened my optimism a little because his financial life did not depend solely on the improvement of the stock price. Now that it appears that the tire company does not have the wherewithall to acquire other mom-n-pop operations on its own. That has caused an upward tick in my optimism because it still may be possible that the major payoff for Jack lies in restoring a reasonable value to the stock. I guess (and I'm not very knowledgeable about this stuff) that it is still reasonable to expect some m-for-n stock conversion to occur in order to get the price back into a credible range, desirable in a publicly traded stock. I'm still "in", but it seems to me that the scenario ahead is not likely to be an "instant big winner", but holds decent prospects, and maybe better for a little longer hold. That's the end of my mind dump. What seems right and what seems wrong about this assessment, y'all? BTW, all the continuing conversation about the goings-on has sure helped me in sorting out what to do with this holding. Thanks to you all! Oh yeh, and the consolidation of the information on the web page is a nice/helpful contribution as well (particularly to the newcomers). JimA

To: Milk who wrote (1553)	1/13/1998 1:30:00 PM
From: D LEE	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6654

Reg s can be very bad ju ju: The important thing is to know the bottom limit price at which these special shares can be converted. It indicates what possibilities the loaner might be conjuring up in (the reason for) his purchase. beware of "bottomless", indicating they can convert at any price, no matter how low, and more often seek ways to encourage a low price reguardless of consiquence to the company. be especially aware of "offshore", because these people are free of jurisdiction others are not as they are comfortably out of the country. At any rate, the reg s people have a leg up on stockholders as they are investing in a different way. This puts an element of interest different from that of the stockholder well into the picture. dave

To: Milk who wrote (1553)	1/13/1998 3:09:00 PM
From: Frank Henriquez	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6654

Milk - As a US stockholder, it's hard NOT to take a dim view of Reg S financing since we're the ones that eventually get screwed. I can think of one or two other ways of raising money, but neither is legal, and both are just as distasteful. I think that Jack Arnold's paragraph explaining why Reg. S financing was required was intended squarely at us on this thread; it certainly wasn't necessary for him to do so and does ameliorate the sting somewhat, but still...Reg. S sucks. I just hope that CVIA/WOTD can get rid of the Reg S bottom feeders ASAP. Frank