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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Westrend Natural Gas - I.D.E. Hot Stock -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chuck Rubin who wrote (1738)	12/11/1998 8:06:00 AM
From: Wink	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2011

I am strictly against it. The price has drifted downward due to management's lack of keeping us informed. Why would a reverse split not keep drifting back down? And another reason is due to my average price of $0.70/share. This 1:15 would give me a cost per share of $10.50!!!!. No way I could ever break even (lest make a profit) if they start out with a 1:15 at around $1.50/share. This sucks big time!! I have held this stock through the ups and downs for 2 years and believed in what they were doing. Now they want to drive a stake in my heart and my pocketbook. Thanks but no thanks. I haven't received my proxy yet but I'm already steamed!! ;>)

To: Chuck Rubin who wrote (1738)	12/11/1998 12:33:00 PM
From: Leigh McBain	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2011

Chuck, as I posted I do not support a 15:1 ratio, not now, not later, not likely ever. With number of shares currently out however, and the current price (I am not referring to value, just price) there are also potential problems with doing any financings. I am not looking ot have them go on a financing binge, but at this level there are certain types of investors (long term stability of the shareholder, being the issue) that we may not have access to. As for the Taylor sale, I do not believe that it is still a primary goal, hard to say for sure, but I don't believe it to be. However, having taken a look at doing so and realizing that they would have to call a special shareholders meeting to garner approval, if they did want to do it, it makes perfect sense (from their point of view) to attempt to get "POTENTIAL" approval at the AGM. I do NOT support the general principal of the sale of Taylor, I am just explaining why that item is on the agenda. Now for "WHY" we may want to do the rollback and/or sale. I have posted many times that their are other potential deals that have been looked at, how would we currently fund an acquisition, for instance, we would either need cash (Sale of Taylor or Alamo or both) or we would need to issue shares (would you like to see 60M shares out?) Consider this possibility, the flexibility to exact one of these 2 options, WITHOUT a special shareholders meeting, becomes important. The above is just perspective on things. As I have stated I am not necessarily in support of all the possibilities that arise as a result of these issues, however, I do understand why they are on the table. Salut, Leigh McBain