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 : OILEX (OLEX) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve who wrote (3176)	3/31/1998 11:34:00 AM
From: OFW	Respond to of 4276

Looks like we have different definitions of "material". Apparently to some "not material" means "trivial". To others it means "several times annual revenues". Of course, on at least some of the SEC filings the company didn't say the pending legal actions were "not material", they merely responded "none". In all honesty, I can fully understand the company's problem with coming up with a definition for "material". After all, in the past Oilex has paid the same person, Oliver H. Timmins, III, for both management duties as President of the company and for Legal Services to the company. No wonder they have a problem receiving "objective" definitions of "material". Offie

To: Steve who wrote (3176)	3/31/1998 2:35:00 PM
From: OFW	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4276

Interesting Theory About Reg-S Financing Steve, I noted with interest the following post that you made earlier today on the Henley Group (HNLY) thread, Post 1119. Considering your previous defense of Oilex as it relates to their long chain of Reg-S filings, I am most intrigued by your view of Reg-S filings when they are offered by a company other than Oilex. Consider a theory of Reg S financing: A debenture is offered and is picked up by a non-US entity. This non-US entity is under no obligation to disclose its ownership structure. The debenture is convertible. The conversion options are exercised at a very low price after the market makers, chop shops aka (the recent investment firm) have driven the stock down further lowering the price because of dilution. A round of hype drives the stock skyward because most investors are unaware of the dilution. The converted shares are slowly unloaded during the runup. Catch: the non-US entity is actually owned by principals of the company whose stock was just sold but they are hidden through layers of subsidiary companies who are simply shells with mail drops. Beautiful. Great retirement package. What a golden parachute but its your gold. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your intent, but it seems to me that if you have those viewpoints on Reg-S financing as they relate to another company, those concerns should also apply to Oilex. Why the apparent double standard? Offie