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: Sid Turtlman who wrote (988)	4/6/1999 2:46:00 PM
From: trader	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2513

This is a quote from the Feb 17 1999 DCHT Press Release "Antaeus is a strategic affiliate of Material Technologies, Inc. " I can assume that this could mean that this company may not be owned or operated by MTEY.

To: Sid Turtlman who wrote (988)	4/6/1999 6:50:00 PM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 2513

Sid, the following statement is a direct quote from the press release in question. " DCH estimates this application at over $1 million in annual revenue going into the millennium. " Now as I read it that statement promises NOTHING, even without a disclaimer at the end, quite contrary to the heart of your allegations. If MTEY didn't see fit to include information about Antaeus and DCHT in their 10-k, it could be because neither ANTAEUS nor the deal with DCHT was financially relevant to date. It could be a simple omission by a comany that isn't even required to report. MTEY's 10-k simply does not "clearly indicate that Antaeus did not exist as late as March 30 in any meaningful fashion..." as you claim. This notion is pure supposition on your part and represents your estimation of "meaningful" only. Tell that to JOBS and Wozniak when they were working out of a garage. This looks to be an MTEY reporting problem if anything. If Antaeus has no business whatsoever yet is formed as a legal entity and is plotting to attempt to procure inspection contracts via the use of DCHT products then I'd say it existed prior to March 30 in a meaningful way even if MTEY choose not to include it in it's 10-K. The notion that DCHT is dishonest for reporting on an agreement with ANTAEUS is ludicrous IMO. That DCHT "estimates" certain revenues from the agreement is not a promise. If you want to provide some analysis as to why you might think ANTAEUS could never win an inspection contract using DCHT's products, that would be helpful. The rest of us may just be aware that you can't count DCHT chickens before they hatch...but it's fine to see incubators turning on. DCHT made no claims as to the current nature of ANTAEUS and it's business- but rather simply told of it's own hope for the future of the agreement. >>I don't see anywhere language like "The customer that we will supposedly be doing millions of dollars of business with does not yet exist and has no money." I think if they said that, they would be safe.<< I think it would be comforting and proper for the nature of Antaeus to be plainly spelled out in the DCHT release, but having made no representations of Antaeus whatever, I think DCHT is quite in the clear. I think you are essentially creating much ado about nothing(nothing-ANTAEUS to date, if you will- and I'm not sure that's even fair- are you?). I think if you want to refer this one to the SEC they may begin to think twice about whether you waste their time.