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 : DCH Technologies (DCH) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scoobah who wrote (945)	4/4/1999 4:08:00 PM
From: John Curtis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2513

Hmmmmmm......having wandered over here from some other, related, threads because of my interest in the alternative energy generation/storage market sector I have to say I always find it interesting these personal "battles" between the negativists and the positivists who are in love/hate with the issue in question. In this case it's DCHT. A rather interesting BB company. And having done not near enough d.d. on this one, yet, to clearly deduce who's right, wrong, etc., let me ask a most basic question. Has anyone, and I discount the acknowledged paid promotor, "kicked the tires" of DCHT by visiting them? I always find this most helpful, and eliminates(or reduces) the likelihood of scams. And of that particular ilk I can think of a weee few, from BRE-X(a scam of HISTORICAL proportions), to SEXI and on and on and on. To the positivists I've got to say you can do your argument a massive favor by cogently answering the questions put to you. And as for DCHT....well......right now I'm keying off of this; "It is one thing for a company to be optimistic about its long term potential in its press releases. But if a company puts out a press release announcing a relationship with what would be a major new customer, and even projects revenues from that customer, and the customer does not exist, and THE COMPANY KNEW THAT when it put out the news release, well, I don't know, what would you call it?" Yes sir, all else being equal, when confronted by smoke and mirrors, and a refusal to answer explicitly direct questions, then the simplest of deductions can only apply, eh? Now for some more d.d. 'cause ya never know until you look under the rock. Regards!! John~

To: Scoobah who wrote (945)	4/4/1999 8:23:00 PM
From: Sid Turtlman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2513

Steve: I'm beginning to think you don't like me! I am also beginning to think that you prefer putting up a smokescreen to discussing important issues. Let us discuss the possibility of intentional, criminal fraud - that is an important issue, wouldn't you say? In my opinion, if a company announces a very large contract with a customer, and that customer in fact does not exist and the company knew that when it put out its announcement, then a prosecutor and jury could well decide that those responsible are guilty of fraud. I, and everyone here, would very much like to believe that this is not what is going on with DCHT. Yet the evidence from the new MTEY 10-K strongly indicates that Antaeus Corp., its proposed joint venture that was announced as DCHT's customer, did NOT exist on February 17th when DCHT put out its announcement, and did NOT exist even on March 30, 1999 when MTEY submitted its 10-K. Let me discuss "exist" more precisely - yes, someone could have submitted DBA papers to a local authority months ago, and thus Antaeus would have "existed" from that moment on. But a piece of paper with no employees, address, phone, technology, or financing does not exist as a corporation in any MEANINGFUL sense, and is incapable of placing orders of ANY size with DCHT, let alone ones of a magnitude many times greater than the latter's annual sales. I'll help you out by suggesting an explanation that DCHT might want to make. Perhaps MTEY's accountant is incompetent and inadvertently submitted a false 10-K, forgetting to mention the formation and financing of Antaeus. After all, with MTEY's cash balance on 12/31/98 all of $20, one can't expect Coopers & Lybrand to prepare its books. Is that the explanation? Or is there some other explanation? I sure hope so. Or perhaps you disagree with my basic premise - maybe you think it is perfectly OK for a company to announce big contracts with imaginary companies, so long as the stock goes up as a result. Which is it: Did DCHT tell the truth in its announcement? Terrific, but then how do you explain the MTEY 10-K? Or did DCHT not tell the truth? These questions should be easy to answer in a few sentences - it shouldn't take up too much of your valuable time. Everyone here, shareholders of DCHT or not, would prefer to think the best of both the company and you. Posts in which you foam at the mouth but don't discuss the issue at hand make it difficult for us to do so.