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 : PNLK..ProNetLink..Facts Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ztect who wrote (55)	5/16/1998 1:22:00 PM
From: ztect	Respond to of 291

Learning to read between the Lines..... From Chatfield Dean & Co. "....Based on a recent stock price of $8.00 and 37,849,500 shares outstanding (of which only 7,749,500 are free trading), the Company has a current market capitalization (value) of approximately $300 million. We asked the Company to disclose who owned the remaining 30,100,000 shares and they responded that they were not required to disclose that information...." 1). Based on value of held shares @$8.00 ...this company is a $300,000,000.000 Company ALREADY. 2). Company would not disclose who owns remaining 30,100,000.00 a).. PNLK doesn't have to. b). Big name and institutional holders of shares do not want their names disclosed until they have accumulated as many shares as they can. Plus if certain names are associated with PNLK...the price will run up too quickly, and thus institutions will have no opportunities to get shares at better values. 3). Chatfield Dean & Co aren't criminals...THEY ARE JUST STUPID! Based on the above points, the following is probably the reason to account for the volatility: Big name investors and institutions heard and got into PNLK after the price had already moved up. Consequently "the people with money" drove the prices down so that they could accumulate mores shares. Nothing I said or Tmex said or whomever else said aside from Glenn Z...could counteract or instigate the arbitrage activity. To believe so would be delusion and vain. My "Thesis" is based on many conversations with "money people" who hadn't heard of PNLK until I mentioned this issue to them. But when they heard, you should have seen their EARS PERK UP! (I was in initially at 1.5, I'm averaged in at about 2.75 for 35,000.shares). Hopefully they accumulated enough shares, and therefore Monday will have little or no downside. I'm actually cautiously optimistic for Monday.. Hope no goof balls try to raise issues about the non "delay" et cetera. Anyway that is just MY POINT OF VIEW..... Take it with a grain of salt ztect

To: ztect who wrote (55)	5/16/1998 1:23:00 PM
From: ztect	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 291

Please Note: I shot the Sheriff and now I shot the detective as well...(continued)..... Please note I have removed my link to a certain detective from my profile because of this paper's lack of dd. However, I will add that this service did do a good job with BAAT...a company whose thread and activity could substantiate any reasons for the volume and activity of BAAT. Please note I have replaced this link with an AWESOME one.... news.com this is the computer related news link of CNET....check out their latest story on "Portals Services" which I have previously recommended. Since my (this) "inconsistency" was called to my attention, I have made this post to clarify any misconceptions. PNLK is a legitimate company with incredible (unbelievable) upside. Again these are strictly my opinions.....Take mine or anyone else's with a table spoon of salt. ztect