NOTE: SORRY TO THREAD VETERANS--I MEANT TO REPLY TO CU TIGER'S REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON ZULU. I INADVERTANTLY DID SO IN RESPONSE TO A JON TARA POST. I ACTUALLY MEANT MY RESPONSE TO BE IN RESPONSE TO CU TIGER'S POST. I DO NOT RESPOND TO JON TARA POSTING BECAUSE OF HIS PERPETUAL UNREASONABLE ACTIONS WITH REGARD TO VIEWING ZULU OBJECTIVELY. ALL OF THE ABOVE WAS WRITTEN IN THE EDIT PROCESS. BELOW IS MY INTENDED RESPONSE TO CU TIGER. THANKS--PARTYTIME
And speaking of a grain of salt, Tiger, you can use all the salt in China to be careful of the posting you received from Jon Tara. Not only that one, but future ones as well. Check the past record.
For the record, posters on SI are boycotting Jon Tara. A review of the record will show two things: a) That Tara is obsessed with destroying Zulu; and b) that every skeptical thing said in the past has been disproved.
The only issue standing on the table, at this point, is the release of the Zulu audit. It is not known the reasons for the delay of its release. It's my guess that the reason is possibly:
1) Inherent difficulties due to the Zulu acquisition of several companies, forming them into one company and the auditing coordination of the respective components within each entity acquired. Coupled with this is the ESVS/Zulu merger.
2) It has not been released due to strategic reasons. Remember, this is advertising and advertising is manipulative by nature. A company of this kind, with something significant to report, will do at the most optimum moment.
Being unfamiliar with your extent of knowledge concerning Zulu, you should at least know the following:
1) Zulu has taken a back door approach to gaining status in the market. The original investment group, NetVest, bought an OTC:BB shell of a company (Star Medical), did a reverse split and began acquiring companies in the internet advertising field. Particularly noteworthy among early acquisitions was echoMEDIA which developed movie-quality online advertising technology (leading-edge technology). Shortly afterward, Zulu bought the sales, marketing and bluechip clients of Softbank Interactive Marketing (SIM), a then close competitor of Doubleclick, which today traded at one point as high as 20 dollars. In a tribute to what had happened, Wired wrote a glowing account of how Zulu could become one of three major players in the online advertising field.
2) The weather changed. SIM came with two CEO's of its own who had been operating cooperatively, plus Zulu already had a CEO (Ronald Meatchem) with another one (Steve Lair) on the horizon. Four CEO's, coupled with financial problems that came with SIM, caused a complete restructuring of Zulu's newly acquired entities. Disgruntlement led to Wired changing its tune and then printing four or five extremely damaging articles against Zulu. After all had gone to print, a former SIMer was hired by Wired. One poster here alleges four of them were hired and $25,000 was paid for background information against the original investors of Zulu.
Since Doubleclick had IPO'd at a similar time, and Zulu piggybacked this with a press release noting it achieved higher revenues than Doubleclick, Zulu's stock rose out of pennydom to hit as high as $1.50. But the Wired onslaught effected investor confidence and the stock price then plummeted close to where you find it today. Stock Detective, based on no new research other than what Wired reported, did a piggyback article and this further damaged Zulu. [as a note, Zulu advocates consider the aforementioned reporting as suspect at best. But concurrently, these articles have had the effect of keeping Zulu as suspect as well.
3) Zulu did not publicly respond to the damaging articles. Instead, it concentrated on firming its business components into one entity and attracting top-notch management (see recent press releases relative to hiring announcements: executives from Philips Electronics, DEC, Pixar/Disney, Boxtop Interactive, Hodes Advertising and other well-known entities).
4) The plan, since inception, was to acquire these companies, build a business plan and organization and then attain a Nasdaq or American Stock Exchange listing. Consistent with this, a merge plan developed with ESVS, a Nasdaq listed stock that was in danger of losing its listing due to changes in Nasdaq requirements. To avoid delisting, both companies exchanged 20% of each other's stock which was sufficient for ESVS to maintain its Nasdaq listing. This kept ESVS firmly on Nasdaq while the two companies pursued a business combination to merge the two entities into one company, with Zulu controlling 80% of the resulting entity. (see ESVS SEC filings) And it is this action that is in the mill and close to completion.
5) At some point--some speculate around July 22nd--close of the ESVS second quarter--a Zulu audit will be presented to the ESVS shareholders for merger approval and SEC approval. [NOTE: One of the controversial investors that Wired and Stock Detective dumped on, was the individual responsible for putting the original investment group--NetVest--together. NetVest has since sold its investment interest to an entity called China International Equities, a venture capitalist group of which little is known at this point.]
On the quick, the above is the best nutshell scenario I can provide you as to an update on where we're at. So in summation there are three things we investors are looking forward to:
1) Public release of the Zulu audit and thereby confirmation that Zulu made more money than Doubleclick.
2) The formal merger action with ESVS.
3) A shot at proving that Zulu's technology, sales & marketing, bluechip clientele and top-notch management can rival what Doubleclick has thusfar been able to accomplish.
I hope this helps you, Tiger. Others can fill in the blanks, or perhaps correct me where I've written to quickly (you see, I type awfully fast).
The only other point to empahsize is that most of us veterans who have been with Zulu since last fall or longer, have boycotted the comments of Jon Tara. He has proven himself as no friend to Zulu and no friend to our investment. Plus, we have evidence where he talked up shorting ESVS.
There you have it. Good luck to you. We've already done most of the suffering and have been investigating Zulu for a long time. Most of the original names are still around or closely lurking and watching closely what develops. I, personally, hold 12 thousand shares and am operating right now at a $2,000 loss, which I attribute largely to Wired and Stock Detective's trash job. |
