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 : USA Video Interactive (US:ASE) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Clark Kent who wrote (872)	1/17/1998 1:14:00 PM
From: j g cordes	Respond to of 1841

While it might seem intrusive for an investor to querry the announced business relationships of a company they invest in, in my opinion its sometimes mandatory and not at all out of line. Things which would be intrusive might be calling the sales desk and asking when that shipment is scheduled for, or if a check is going to be cut soon... questions are properly handled through the pr or communications person. Even such a venerable investor as P Lynch, says he's visited the parking lots of companies to see how full the shifts were. I've heard of investors applying for work to see how in need of new hires a company is to meet new sales... If you're putting your money in the trust of another its prudent to have some indirect feedback on its safety and possibility. I don't think Ed meant anything more than don't be a nusiance, while you Randy don't mean anything more than due diligence with a little extra insight to protect your money. The next two months are critical from what I've seen posted. Good luck to all.. Jim

To: Clark Kent who wrote (872)	1/17/1998 7:25:00 PM
From: Ed Pakstas	Respond to of 1841

>>>Well, that is exactly what I did as part of my DD with Hall Train. I called Spar Aerospace to find out if they were working on a hydraulic robot for the new Universal theme park in FLorida, as Hall Train claimed.<<< If memory serves me correctly, it resulted in SPAR company representatives contacting HTRN to find out who you were and what right you had to call and enquire about SPAR'S business affairs... By not following proper business ettiquette and going to the company itself and requesting permission to contact the appropriate individual(s)at Spar, on behalf of investor due dilligence, the end result was that it became ten times as hard to get HTRN to part with News Releases... >>>If I were invested in a mutual fund and they were considering taking a large (or small) position in a high risk VOD (video on demand) company I would be a little more than annoyed if the mutual fund manager didn't call Rogers to confirm/verify or get an update on any MOU's Rogers might have with the company the fund is considering investing in. <<< First of all if you were an investor in a mutual fund, you wouldn't know what that fund was considering to invest in...You would more than likely consider your investment based it's previous performances...Does Walmart tell K-Mart what it's next move is going to be before it makes the move???...When you play chess, do you tell your oponent what move your going to make, before you make it???... >>>In fact if the VOD company didn't want people to check their story then maybe they shouldn't be a public company.<<< Nobody is saying that an investor shouldn't...All I'm saying is that there are channels that one should follow to obtain the best result...If obtaining the result becomes a roadblock to satisy an investment, then one should/would reconsider his/hers investment in said company... >>>Too many small investors (and large ones:see BXM)owe it to themselves to clarify/verify everything, and not leave it to the security regulators or newsletter writers to do their DD for them.<<< Can't argue that point at all... >>>I wouldn't stop an investor from doing what he thought was necessary as part of his DD.<<< Never have and never will... >>>These are the views of an investor burnt one too many times....<<< Been there just as many times, if not more... ...ed