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: paulbk who wrote (1986)	2/28/1998 3:00:00 PM
From: J.R.	Respond to of 6654

I could not have said that any better.

To: paulbk who wrote (1986)	2/28/1998 4:32:00 PM
From: FloridaGatorMike	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6654

I totally agree Paul. When I bought into this company, all I heard was about how Jack Arnold was concerned with the shareholder's interests and I've seen nothing to this date to support that. We've had no substantial news to make us feel secure with our investment! For all we know, a 500:1 reverse split is on the horizon?!? I know penny stocks are an extremely risky investment, but I feel suckered into this one! Just my humble opinion....

To: paulbk who wrote (1986)	3/1/1998 3:14:00 AM
From: D LEE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6654

re: #s 1986,1987,1988 My conscience will not allow me to take them to task on such issues. For example, your statement, Paul: "if they are savvy enough to put together a reg-s deal they're savvy enough to know what the SEC rules are." I choose to reason this way: 1) Reg s was savvy enough to judge this a worthy investment for them. (however their interest can be severely against that of the stockholder) They are, most assuredly, cold hearted investors. In looking back, I don't think this filing did came as a surprise. There was a good for-warning if I recall correctly. Naturally the stockholder is sub- ordinate to reg s in the market system. They filled a present need to preserve cvia integrity in face of the NASDAQ crackdown as well as other needs. 2) CVIA is savvy enough to politely stretch the sec rule in an order to keep any related "news" element in harmony with their present efforts. For all we know, this may be preserving a window allowing them to file a request to extend even further. They may find it desirable to do so in the best interest of all concerned. This is a delicate situation and rules are created as a best guess for the average situation, which this is not. Actually these are the same thoughts that caused me to discontinue any guessing about the competition cvia/wotd might face when things do get underway. I felt it was counter productive. (A speculator is a person willing to suffer the price change either way so that a producer can go about producing un-bothered by such temporary matters. He also can accept the consequence by continued action without damaging his lifestyle or must discontinue.) As delicate and unusual as this situation is, I have to admit that the term "investor" (that might apply to reg s) and the term "speculator" (that might apply to the shareholder) are quite different terms. And why the shareholder might best adjust to look at this in a longer term perspective where these "news matters" become non events. Reg s will have their day first. Of course, speculation today can become known as investing in tomorrow at today's "discount price" but your profit will most likely result from company success and good future moves to protect your position, as opposed to news. (Though, I am not talking about throwing money at it. -I may post more on this.) I can always be wrong, these are only my thoughts. Dave