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 : MXR MAXIMUM RESOURCES INC. (VSE:MXR) UP? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mr.Staya who wrote (700)	2/20/1998 5:42:00 PM
From: Wayne Allen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 751

Mr Staya Spoke with the good Mr. G yesterday afternoon. He didn't tell me much, but said he's doing everything he can to get things to work. I believe him, as he has been very honest in the past. The volume today was me selling to get into NPEC. Not hyping a stock here, rather explaining the 50K shares traded today. It was me. I did it not because of the company, but rather I could make some $$ while awaiting things to work out. Wayne

To: Mr.Staya who wrote (700)	3/3/1998 4:36:00 PM
From: Mr.Staya	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 751

To All: So the date is set for the AGM for Friday March 27th. at 10am. PST I too feel that reverse splits in general usually don't do much for shareholder value, in the short-term anyway. However, with MXR's situation at hand it really will be in the shareholder's best interest. For a number of reasons, the first being that .15 cents is the minimum allowable financing level for the VSE, so they can't even get a start at these levels. Secondly the shares will then be fairly tightly held, and for a spec stock, we all know what can happen once a little buying comes into play. Thirdly, they are in talks with a number of other companies and such, but to make any progress in these deals they have to first have the higher share price for financing these operations as well as a firmer stock price to enable negotiations, as they most certainly will use part or all of a stock purchase arrangement. This would be if they JV with another company on a project or operation or buy another company outright. Keep in mind that their 80% option in California returned results of 7.26 oz per ton gold over a width of nearly four feet, and .065 oz per ton/au over a vertical depth of 110 feet. They are keen to get going on this property, as they see its great potential. I believe you will all be pleasantly surprised once the companies upcoming developmental plans are released. I am however against a 7:1 reverse split, and see a 3:1 or 4:1 making more sense. This would be enough for financings and could hold itself with the reduced number of shares outstanding at a minimum .15 cent factor, I believe. This way there would be plenty of upside (pending announcements etc) and minimal downside to the consolidation. I may have more later today on the companies direct plans of increasing shareholder value. Regards, Ric Staya