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 : Ben Ezra Weinstein (BNEZ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elio Madama who wrote (3136)	10/2/1998 10:38:00 PM
From: heatseeker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9391

Elio, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. If the owners of these restricted shares sell short now, then they are no longer the owners of those shares technically. If they wish to retain ownership, they would need to cover the short at some point. And I really can't imagine why they would sell shares for such a small price anyway (assuming they feel like the rest of us that the stock price is very undervalued).

To: Elio Madama who wrote (3136)	10/3/1998 11:40:00 AM
From: Jud	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9391

Elio, This is not a direct response to your message, it is more or less something I just want to throw out for the Thread and use your message as a foundation. We believe that on 11/20/97 authorized (not outstanding!) shares went from 20M to 35M. I suspect the motivation for this was acquisition of other companies (using shares of BNEZ). We know that the closing of the acquisitions occurred at the time of the reverse and the reverse actually facilitated the acquisitions. We also know that preferred shares (most likely in the hands of very few, possibly only Mr. Ben Ezra and Mr. Weinstein?) were eliminated in favor of common shares. We know that Mr. Ben Ezra and Mr. Weinstein most likely purchased $400k of shares pre-reverse. Although one scenario that may be true is that Mr. Ben Ezra and Mr. Weinstein saw value in the company when they invested the $400K and so made the investment with the knowledge that by doing so they would perhaps fuel a share price increase and/or stop the deterioration in share price, I tend to believe they made the investment to assure continuity of control after acquiring one or more new companies. That was not enough, to my way of thinking, however. I think they needed to convert the preferred shares to common as well. This is all speculation, but as I have read this Thread for many months, there are some good minds out there that may put things together far better than I! Why am I focusing on this? Well, I would like to learn as much as I can about the total shares outstanding....and when I do, then, I think I can make more intelligent decisions about my investment. Unfortunately, the AOL lawsuit (and I will spend some time on that in a future post - as I was at the U.S. District Court for New Mexico a few weeks ago and spent 4-5 hours reading the case) and the current MM "thing", precludes the company (or so I have been led to believe - but more about that later) from discussing actual numbers. Okay, let me speculate, if you don't mind. 20M shares authorized 11/19/97. 35 M shares authorized 11/20/97. What do the principals do? On 6/4/98 they convert their preferred to common. Somewhere I believe I have read that preferred totalled 4M. For reasons I cannot disclose, I believe this gave the principals more control, i.e. 4M shares of common for voting whereas no voting rights for preferred. They also buy $400K shares at about $.15-.20/share. This converts to 2M to 2.5M shares. Their voting strength has increased, therefore, by 6-6.5M shares. This allows acquisition(s) of about 6M shares, and control remains in the hands of the principals. Total outstanding shares possible 11/19/97 = 20M. New purchases 6/98 = 6M, therefore, approximately 26M shares outstanding pre-reverse, with the principals owning a little over half. This implies 2-2.5M outstanding shares post reverse. (This is not far fetched since the maximum is a little less than 3 million). This does not seem right, however, since others are reporting that a block of SI shareholders controls 1.5M common shares. So, my analysis breaks down and I am no further with it than at the beginning. Still, I think if someone could figure it out, it would be helpful. My point is that there is a big difference in say 5M shares outstanding and 15M or 25M. One idea is that although my guesstimate above addressing voting shares, it fails to address non-voting shares issued subsequent to the reverse for the acquisitions. But, if this had happened, would not the corporation commission reported when I called them last week an amendment allowing the existence of such shares?