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 : Zulu-tek, Inc. (ZULU) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Fredman who wrote (16814)	12/8/1998 2:36:00 PM
From: Chilbert	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18444

<< 'best in class' >> It's easy - just wait until everyone else graduates !

To: Fredman who wrote (16814)	12/8/1998 4:20:00 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18444

>>>"... just lies, broken promises, rumors and innuendo." Seems to me, Fred, we've seen a lot of the things you describe above as also used as implements against the company, to tear away at its hopes, so to speak. To date, I don't think anything's been proven except to ackowledge the fact the company is seedling still trying to grow and that we have an early view of its formation. What more is clear?

To: Fredman who wrote (16814)	12/8/1998 4:30:00 PM
From: CWIII	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18444

Fred, I agree with you that the companies track record with regard to their promises has been bad, but the question I've been asking myself is "Why is management spending so much money, time and effort keeping this company a float if they're not expecting big dividends in return?" If it's so much of a "pump and dump" as some have portrayed or suggested why aren't (Pat Hayton, Netvest, and ESVS management) they selling? Surely these guys aren't getting rich from stock equity with the stock price and the volume being so low! Why is Softbank Holdings holding 9,129 preferred shares of Netvest/Zulumedia to be redeemed in three equal installments over the next three years if the company is not planning to become profitable in the near term? Are they just going to give money away having paid $9,129,000 for it in 1996? Doesn't make logical sense to me. I may be wrong but my gut feeling tells me I'm not! Why has the company spend so much time trimming, scaling and continue to build a management staff if they plan to curtail or drive the company in the ground? Again, it don't make logical sense to me. Why has there been so much effort in trimming the company from $22 mil loss to a $7 mil loss when the could have "bleed" the company dry and then filed bankruptcy? They could have pump this thing up to $10 per share then shorted it on the way down and made a bundle wouldn't you think? I may be wrong but only time will tell. I own it and if I fail on this one I only have myself to blame for my mistake and my own decision.