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 : Zulu-tek, Inc. (ZULU) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PartyTime who wrote (6997)	5/13/1998 2:04:00 PM
From: Terry T.	Respond to of 18444

I guess I have not returned to lurker status yet. I agree with you. Despite all transitions, I know more about company and feel much better about directions it is TRYING to take than when I first bought in last November. The early hype about web growth has been confirmed to be faster and broader than even that suggested last fall. There early hype about a future NASDQ listing may be realized sooner than I ever imagined (it truly was a pipe dream in the fall of 1997). The early hype about certain technological advantages of the company may now have "some" merit (with ESVS' technical support), despite the failure to develop a Bellcore connection, and the unexplained change in the Charles Rose/Roseware/Universal connection. The early hype about explosive revenue growth may have a more concrete basis with Softbank acquisition, the confirmed explosive growth of web adverstising, and a stronger management team (if not, there is some explaining to do about the January/February press releases, and Mary's comments last week about "very, very positive" information on sales side.). Perhaps as important as anything else, the management and IR team, with Mincheff (sp?), Mary Conway, etc., appear much stronger and more credible than last fall - no disrespect to Tom Burgess, the original IR people, etc., As I have said before, not bad for a speculative, penny stock which came to fruition last August 1997.

To: PartyTime who wrote (6997)	5/13/1998 9:20:00 PM
From: Jon Tara	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18444

Party, I'm not so sure now that a merger is in the offing. After reading various ESVS SEC reports more closely, I see that I (and perhaps others) had made an incorrect assumption - that ESVS needs to complete the merger with NETZ in order to save their NASDAQ listing. In fact, the exchange of shares that has already taken place was sufficient to give ESVS the net tangible assets needed to retain their listing. Perhaps everybody already got what they wanted out of this deal - ESVS got to keep their NASDAQ listing. NETZ got a fresh supply of hope that they can peddle.

To: PartyTime who wrote (6997)	5/13/1998 9:23:00 PM
From: Jon Tara	Respond to of 18444

"One thing I know for sure: This company ain't standing still, and it ain't going backwards in terms of growth. " On what basis do you make this statement? Do you know what their growth rate is? Do you know ANYTHING about the company's finances? Are you clairvoyant? In fact, it's a pretty reasonable assumption, based on the general chaos at the company, the loss of sales people, and the loss of the European operation, that their revenues have been considerably off from last year. I would certainly call this "going backwards in terms of growth." But, then, we will probably never know, since this company doesn't choose to share their financial results with their shareholders.