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 : TPII - Year 2000 (Y2K); Groupware; Client Server Migration -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MB who wrote (9238)	11/1/1998 11:46:00 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10903

MB, highly doubtful TPII will do anything about Kernaghan. With the $4M loss they are projecting for the year, they aren't just bleeding red ink they are hemorrhaging it. It's either do another toxic convert or close the doors at this point. Heck, their last 10Q even says point blank they will "continue to raise capital through these vehicles." So, the question is whether TPII has to use Kernaghan for the next go-around or whether they can go with someone more, ummm, "fair". First of all, anyone who has done even minimal research on toxic converts knows just about all such deals result in the stock being shorting unmercifully. Forget about the "law" and ethics; this is reality. Second, Kernaghan and TPII have a long history together. Can you imagine what Kernaghan might say if TPII told them to take a hike, or, worse, they were going to sue them??? "Uh, excuse me, but every time you needed money we were there for you. OK, we understand it's strictly business. I guess if we're not going to be 'partners' any more I guess we don't need to keep holding those million shares any more. Oh, of course we still believe in you; it's just, well, business." Third, consider the timing of news with conversions. Recall how TPII held a conference call right after a conversion, told investors how they didn't expect to do any more dilutive financing, then days later did a toxic convert. Coincidence or complicity? Therein lies the difference between TPII and CSGI. CSGI did their convert under a previous administration. At least according to Tech, CSGI needed money fast and didn't know what they were getting themselves into. TPII had plenty of time to do their research. No one here should be complaining they were taken by surprise. Back in June Ice Cube wrote in detail about Kernaghan: #reply-4845312. When the toxic convert came out I (and Alan, etc.) warned everyone how devastating they were: #reply-5081178. And, lastly, if I were a shareholder, I'd probably be happy to see another financing with Kernaghan because it would mean the doors would stay open for another few months. Ultimately, if TPII is to make it as a company on its own, they need to stay around long enough for Y2K to really (finally) hit. Whether they capitalize is another matter, but you can't win if you don't play as the saying goes. - Jeff P.S. Tech, if you're reading this, here's any easy way to see which companies are doing business with Kernaghan: edgar-online.com