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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Arcon Energy (MIDL Presently) The Ultimate Sleeper -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ga Bard who wrote (1194)	5/27/1998 9:26:00 PM
From: Jay Lowe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4142

Re: reverse merger I have had occasion to research this myself as I am planning a capitalization event for my own company. Doing the rounds, it is absolutely clear that a reverse merger is very attractive, much more so than an IPO for a small company to go public. The only better alternative on the plate is to be acquired, which has it's own set of features and mis-features. There are actually companies around that specialize solely in organizing reverse merger arrangements.

To: Ga Bard who wrote (1194)	5/27/1998 9:29:00 PM
From: Jay Lowe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4142

As I look at the pile of money now wearing MIDL colors in my portfolio, an idea occurs to me. I would be willing to spring for $300 worth of backing GB on another DD trip to Arcon. If enough others on the thread are similarly inclined, maybe we can make it worth his time, eh? Your thoughts?

To: Ga Bard who wrote (1194)	5/28/1998 5:01:00 AM
From: xdll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4142

GB, Thanks for your reply. There are still have a few things that I am not confident about... Patents - Keep in mind that you would never bother fighting a patent unless you felt there was value in it, so testing by exxon doesn't mean they will not contest it. Of course if they did contest it, it would legitimize the product and would give arcon a few years while the legal stuff goes on. It might be cheaper for them to settle. So at the current prices this isn't a big risk, just a potential cap on the upside. Reverse Merger - I do not understand this at all. A reverse merger saves some costs and time but at a very high price. Keep in mind that an IPO is used to raise funds or gain exposure. Given what they are doing, the patents, the management team, the assets, and especially the story, I wouldn't think it that difficult for them to do an IPO. The advantages over a reverse merger: $$$$ they would be selling reasonably priced shares to the public and putting a large chunk of cash into the treasury. They would also be paying an investment bank big fees but this would come from the funds raised. And the investment house would help raise the profile of the firm. Further, the risks would be reduced. (I know someone who after all the dd on a reverse merger ended up getting screwed. He had to sue the big 6 firm that audited and although he won, it resulted in several very miserable years in his life) It just seems like a poor decision to me... comments? Thanks again, x