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 : JAWS;A P/E of 2 with 150%/yr Erngs Growth!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ron Harvey who wrote (2548)	8/27/1998 2:18:00 PM
From: Zeus549	Respond to of 4230

Ron You make some very good points. After the BK debacle, the credibility factor is looming larger IMO. I think the definition of "audited" needs to be clarified. I know the last quarters financial were "reviewed" by a firm in Florida, but from what I understand that doesn't really mean a lot as far as that firm putting their "stamp of approval" on them. Apparently a "review" doesn't mean a hell of a lot in the world of auditing.If I'm wrong about this, I'll be corrected.

To: Ron Harvey who wrote (2548)	8/28/1998 6:34:00 AM
From: Harold Finstad	Respond to of 4230

Ron, Excuse me, but you had better get your story correct. The Company did announce and pay a $.10 cash dividend to all shareholders of record. It was done because the CEO was given some poor advice that such a dividend would force any short seller to cover. If you remember, both my associate Cardshark and myself, at the time, were quite upset over a young high growth company wasting growth capital on this dividend. Just to try a stunt that any half way market savvy pro knows would not work. All this dividend would do would be to cost a short an additional .10 per share. However, we did receive and re-invest our dividend. Had this folly worked as he was told, who would have benefited from the price rise? He and his family who hold restricted stock? Or all shareholders who purchased and owned "free trade" stock. Yes it was a dumb move by the President, but did you buy into this stock because the President was a stock market whizz? Or because he know how to make money for the Company in the boat business. From what I know of Mr. Smith, he is a strong minded, but honorable man. He knew shortly after the dividend was announced that he was given poor information about what effect the dividend would have on any short. So what did he do WITHOUT tell any of us? He turned down the dividend for himself and all members of his family. Not only from the inside stock position, but also on all shares the family purchased in the open market. Once again a dumb move. Ask your accountant. He and family will probably have to pay the tax on this dividend anyway, since his shares are of the same common class as all of our stock. The cash of course remains in the Company for the benefit of all shareholders. So the dividend ends up costing the Company not $800,000 but actually about $300,000. When I asked him why he did it. His answer simply was. "If you look at the history of this Company, you will notice that we rarely ever took any money out of the Company. That is why we were able to grow it starting with almost nothing." No question about it, another dumb answer. This man should not be running a public Company. He is too good and honorable for the crap he has to put up with from most shareholders.