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 : Amazon Natural (AZNT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Just My Opinion who wrote (4860)	9/12/1998 12:02:00 PM
From: WRAP_IR	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 26163

Thanks Anyone. I thought SIPC covered investors when a broker/dealer went under, not necessarily to cover investor losses or losses incurred by other investors or to renumerate or to assist companies in recovering damages as a result of losses in their underlying securities. Though you bring up a good point. OK, let's say that the SIPC steps in - they pay cash, not buy shares in the open market, and getting them to pay would takes years (like an FDIC payoff). For a moment, let's say that the case is decided against Mann et al. Would you, as a promoter (knowing promoters) go in and cover a short position in a civil proceeding when the consequences are negligable at best? No way. If these guys really feared this, the stock would not trade as it does. It would have been bought back up or relentlessly pounded into submission so covering 4,400,00 shares could be easily covered at $.01 - look at H&R Enterprises -- a manipulative scheme causing the fall of Saperston Financial and huge losses incurred by National Financial (Fidelity). Assuming that these promoters are good at what they do, and have friends that do the same, they have millions and can keep on selling. Much like hundreds of other stocks, they drop like a rock and shorters and others incur no legal problems. This law suit may stand on merits or may not, I don't know, but since this is not a criminal proceeding, the failure or inability of the defendants to pay does not necessarily effect a short squeeze. If Mann et al cannot afford (most "sleazy promoters" (as they have been called on this board) hide their funds, or spend them like they are going out of style)or simply don't cover their short, they cannot return the certs like they are supposed to. OK, so a the court awards a judgement to the company against the defendants. Defendants declare banckruptcy and WHAM - it's gone, and they are off to bash the next stock. BTW - why did the company issue these shares to Mann et al. If these shares Resticted (or not) where issued to promoters, it does not speak well for the company's management. It is too many shares, even if there are 50 million outstanding. It is not a reasonable or customary charge for the industry. I guess it is tough for all involved in a non-reporting bulletin board company. There is no source of current information on the company and the company can be issuing shares like crazy unbeknownst to investors. Again, these are just my thoughts, I would like to take part in an objective discussion on the stock - I am not bashing or hyping, just looking for other opionions. Thanks in advance