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.

Technology Stocks : Forecross Corporation : Y/2000 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rick Voteau who wrote (849)	4/7/1998 10:09:00 PM
From: Donald Lickman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1654

I like to short stocks (and stamp collect). Does anyone think that forecross may be a good one to take a shot at the short side? Donald Lickman

To: Rick Voteau who wrote (849)	4/8/1998 4:15:00 PM
From: Richard Moore	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1654

Facts vs. Falsehoods ... the financials referred to in my earlier message came from Forecross' own website. The auditors report, which is the first page in the audited financial statements in the company's annual report, says -and I quote "..the company has sustained recurring losses from operations and has net capital deficiencies and negative working capital at September 30,1997. These conditions raise substantial doubt about the ability of the company to continue as a going concern." This is known a going concern qualification. Where do you come up with your speculation that there is NO MENTION about Forecross not being an ongoing concern? The amount of current liabilities, the fact that all the receivables have been factored and they are borrowing from officers at 24% is all disclosed in the financial statements. Please tell me what is false? These are the facts - not speculation. Re Steve's message which followed re: the uninformed falsehoods How can you say the accounting is conservative when they have recognized sales to distributors who are related - look at their balance sheet - over two thirds of the company's assets are referred to as - unbilled receivables - UNBILLED!!!. Is it conservative to recognize unbilled receivables and sales to related parties who are distributors? Again, the facts are as said in note 4 to Forecross' financials - I quote: "the distributors are related to each other through some common ownership in management, a founding shareholder of the company is a founding investor and officer of each of the entities" My comments seem to have caused a stir. The facts are: the company has a huge cash problem and may not make it through the month. The product may be excellent, but the company is not. If you have facts - not speculation - that are different - let's hear about it. My advice is to take your profits now and move on.

To: Rick Voteau who wrote (849)	4/18/1998 5:45:00 PM
From: Richard Moore	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1654

Look at the facts. Forecross will be bankrupt in two months. This prediction may seem ridiculous for a company which the VSE has driven to a value of over 100 million but if one cares to look at actual results rather than the hype on this site, it's an inescapable conclusion. I have read almost all the old postings and find three consistent reasons which have been used to promote the stock: 1 they have sold yet another distributor (that's four now) at one million a pop; 2 they will be listed on a U.S exchange any day now (this one started in 1996); 3 look at all the contracts signed in the past two years on Y2K -sales will be easily $50,000,000 a year based on these fantastic contracts. The Distributors: The distributors are owned and controlled by the same promoters that own Forecross. These sales of one million each simply reflect the money going around in a circle. The former auditors, Coopers, resigned since they would not recognize these sales. The documentation of this fact is in the BC Securities file and the VSE files both of which I have examined. The only reason for the distributors is that they take 50 percent of any revenues so the public company ends up with only half of the revenue. The VSE: Why would any promoter in his right mind want to move this stock off the VSE. I have been told by the traders on the floor that it is one of the most controlled stocks on the exchange. The float is completely controlled. If this stock ever moved to a U.S. exchange (and it can't because of the going concern auditors qualification - and the fact it has no equity on the books) it would drop in half in one day. No U.S. institutional investor will look at this one - moving to another exchange will not change their mind. The Contracts: I have read through all the countless press releases on the millions of dollars of contracts which will produce millions in sales. In fact the Y2K sales for Forecross are running at around $250,000 monthly. The predicted sales based on the contracts signed in 1996 and 1997 would drive a sales figure of about $4 million monthly. What's going on? Could it be that all the sales announced have evaporated? The question is -Do you believe the reported sales or do you believe the press release sales? The amounts owing for unpaid wages and commissions (about $950,000 at December) will be a higher number than their sales this quarter. Further, ALL THEIR RECEIVABLES HAVE BEEN FACTORED - if you haven't caught on yet, this means that not one cent of cash comes into Forecross it all goes to the factoring company - plus 24 percent! The only certainty is that the promoters will be forced to convert their options on 500,000 shares (at a whopping $1.43 a share) and the promoters will cash in their 270,000 of warrants to postpone filing for Chapter 11 for maybe two more months. When this happens, look out because on a VSE controlled stock selling 770,000 shares will drive the price down to about $1.45. What I can't understand is this: If anyone took the time to read the financial information which Forecross sends to it shareholders and then compared that to the press releases - alarm bells would ring. How can anyone still hype this stock faced with such overwhelming evidence that it's a sham?