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 : Turbodyne Technologies Inc. (TRBDF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ted M who wrote (1520)	8/5/1998 9:00:00 AM
From: Maximum_Gain	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3458

Turbodyne's Response !!!!!!! biz.yahoo.com I like it . good luck to the longs REO

To: Ted M who wrote (1520)	8/5/1998 11:04:00 AM
From: DJRoss	Respond to of 3458

1. I agree that future expectations are important. So if ABC company needs to raise cash, they sell shares of their company so they can use the money to fund the expenses of making it to profitability. Once there, my future expectations are raised in that I have faith in the company as they have a track record. The longer they are able to generate profits, or maintain growth, or at least a normal profit(+-0), I can see keeping my money in the till to be used. 2. I disagree that future expectations are important. So if ABC company has already raised cash to fund expenses, they decide to raise more cash. And if this becomes habitual meaning that the company is raising cash on a regular basis ie once every two years etc, then I get worried. Why the need? To say the least, if the company is legitimate, then I as a shareholder have an obligation to raise questions as to the logic of having decision makers in the leadership of the company who are making decisions that sap the cash reserves. I also have a problem with the eternal potential phaze, where a company is testing out their products, or even better, having other companies test out the products. All sounds good, and makes me fell warm and fuzzy about the company doing something productive, but it doesn't change the bottom line. There is a difference between the two. A big difference. There is an expression which I feel applies here. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" Even if the leadership of the company is honest and well meaning. The fact that they may be lousy businessmen doesn't motivate me to want to support such a cause. My money is leaning towards the short side. I still have more DD to do. Dug. For those of you who are short, or want to discuss this without be jumped on for flaming, come to the Canine Corner www3.techstocks.com