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 : FAMH - FIRAMADA Staffing Services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ProphetAble who wrote (23974)	9/17/1998 2:31:00 PM
From: PATRICK S.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27968

Jack: You are absolutely right. There should be a active buy back of FAMH shares. Here is an example of the benefit of a buy back. SHARE PRICE $0.10 BUY BACK INVESTMENT $100,000 SHARES BOUGHT BACK 1,000,000 ARIF ADAM RETIRED SHARES 500,000 TOTAL SHARES RETIRED 1,500,000 The reason, as we were told, Arif Adam was issued more shares was to maintain his majority ownership (over 50%). If that is correct, Arif Adam should not object to returning 50% of the number of shares bought back. There needs to be a substantial share buy back and a corresponding retirement of shares held by Arif Adam to give FAMH creditability. I have e-mailed investor relation relating to this and several other questions. I have not yet gotten a response. Pat Scott

To: ProphetAble who wrote (23974)	9/17/1998 7:01:00 PM
From: Little Engine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27968

The company has no money to buy back shares. Proof of this came from the company itself. According to the "unaudit", at the end of 1996, cash on hand equaled $ 5,464. Let's see... if they spent it all, that comes to.... about 55,000 shares. Compared to the 70 million shares issued, hardly a drop in the bucket. Unless you are assuming that after big losses in 1996, they made big profits in 1997. That would beg the question of why they felt the need to issue 50 million shares of stock in 1997. Why would anyone think the company was profitable last year? Because the company said so? They said a lot of things. They behave like a company with no money, that's for sure. It appears that when they get low on cash, they issue stock. They could be issuing more right now, for all anyone knows. Good luck getting answers.