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 : CSHK CASHCO MANAGEMENT Y2K -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Janice Shell who wrote (1437)	4/30/1998 7:08:00 PM
From: TEDennis	Respond to of 7491

Jim B: Re: the Yahoo post ... "By the way I have been told that Jim B. sold his position and has moved on. That's why no more answers. He felt he was being blamed for the fiasco. I believe he was only telling what he knew and probably took it a little hard." Not sure why you should feel "blamed for the fiasco". First of all, I don't know of a "fiasco". This was a case of interested investors trying to find the best place to park some dollars. The fact that some possible negatives came out is a side effect of the due diligence process. That's why the DD is done in the first place. As far as I can tell, nothing has been identified that screams "NO, DON'T BUY THIS STOCK". There are several soft spots that need clarification, though, and some of those flags are very red. I think you were only reporting what you were told by CSHK management. It would make sense that management would focus on the information that puts them in their best light. That's their jobs, and there's nothing wrong with it. Past histories of corporate officers is important, but I'm a firm believer in forgiving past mistakes. However, I also believe in knowing how deep the ravine is before I jump off the cliff. It pays to spend the time to do sufficient DD. It looked like you were about the only one doing it here (I didn't read the entire thread ... just got involved on Friday night). There's no way you could carry on a life outside of investing if you were to spend as much time as the people who showed up here looking to invest. They have studied several companies in the past to determine if a company is worth investing dollars. Their findings are usually quite reliable. Of course, market dynamics play a big role there, but it's better to play with a company that at least has a chance. The research into CSHK's investment potential was a relatively subdued activity. If you want to see some people who get really emotional about their positions on stocks, check out some of the other Y2K threads. Those people are SERIOUSLY committed to stating their opinions and why they feel that way. Not saying you aren't ... it's just a matter of perspective/degree. If you believed in this company enough to take a position in it before, and you have since sold, then the additional information that was brought forward must have played a role in your decision to sell out. I would take that as a confirmation that due diligence works. Hope you don't take any of this personal. As for me, I'm still waiting to see what the Y2K product looks like. If it's marketable and solves a problem, it will do wonders for this stock. Perhaps it will be nothing but a momentum play, or perhaps it will turn into a long term investment. No way to tell yet. Don't give up until you're sure this isn't the right place for your dollars. Regards, TED

To: Janice Shell who wrote (1437)	5/1/1998 5:21:00 AM
From: Currency	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 7491

I remember you saying you were going away. It's unfortunate that some people like to rip a thread to pieces. It defeats the purpose to having a constructive discussion of believing in a company and the products they produce. It's the posts that were placed here that kept the company from putting out any PRs. Heck, I can't blame them. I wouldn't want to put something out either if it were to have no effect on the value of the company after so many people have done nothing but look for negatives instead of the positives. People don't buy into that and I wouldn't either.