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 : THNS - Technest Holdings (Prev. FNTN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (10216)	1/14/1999 6:34:00 PM
From: BHunt	Respond to of 15313

Hi Chris, lack of info is a problem for my confidence. However, a start up's financials can't be too pretty, so they stay non reporting IMO. One guess could be that the exact balance sheet is so ugly at the end of 97 that it would scare off interest. If the startup phase is winding down, then the financials should improve and be more reflective of what the company is about. I am no expert, but these new filing rules from the SEC are gonna make it very tough for small start ups to do public fund raising. Yes, I am worried. But no more than when I go gambling. A play in a BB is just that. I know how much I can gamble. And personally, I like the pit boss and his crew. Not trying to sway anyone. Just stating my position. Good luck to us all. The next few weeks will bring some info in my opinion. BHunt

To: The Philosopher who wrote (10216)	1/14/1999 6:35:00 PM
From: Michael T Currie	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 15313

> Isn't this information that shareholders in a public company, even if only a BB stock, have a right to? Christopher, Unfortunately, we do not have a right to them. It could be argued that FNTN may have a moral obligation to provide same, but not a legal one. I am certainly with you on this one, though. And yes, the fact that there was no answer to your inquiry is troubling. I let it pass during the time that M Sheppard was acting as President, CFO, and chief bottle-washer, but there is no longer an excuse. Message to all flatworms: this is what's known as constructive criticism. I answer Christopher because I am nearly certain that he has no hidden agenda. He brings to the thread a balanced set of reasonable questions. Mike

To: The Philosopher who wrote (10216)	1/14/1999 10:43:00 PM
From: Wally	Respond to of 15313

Chris: Sorry. I saw your question before leaving work but had no time to attempt to answer it. First, I think Michael Currie's response to you was basically my answer (only his was more intelligent). As Michael said to you, there is validity to requesting and receiving this information even though it is not required of the company by current law. Secondly, (putting aside requirements) I believe your question is not off the wall and in fact, quite valid. Additionally, I firmly believe that you deserved the courtesy of an answer even if that answer wasn't going to be accompanied by all, or any of what you requested. I will do my best to ask management your question as you have posed it. My avenues are pretty much the same as yours so I don't know that I will have any more luck than you have had, but I promise that I will try and not let the matter drop without trying. In the meantime, you may wish to try and reach Michael Sheppard by phone. Regards, Wally