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 : JAWS;A P/E of 2 with 150%/yr Erngs Growth!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: katnipball who wrote (3957)	4/9/1999 6:57:00 PM
From: PistolPete	Respond to of 4230

I asked this over at Yahoo, too... There are 2 Mexican accounting firms listed in the filing...nobody in the US at all...does anybody know what happened to the US auditor that was supposed to be preparing/auditing this filing? I expect to be keelhauled for asking this question on Yahoo, but I thought maybe somebody here could give me a straight answer. I am looking forward to the various analyses of the Form 10 that will start surfacing here any minute now...

To: katnipball who wrote (3957)	4/9/1999 6:59:00 PM
From: patim	Respond to of 4230

First glance at form 10 looks really good. Absolutely no increase in share count and it states no outstanding warrants to further dilute. This may very well be the hottest stock opportunity of the year.

To: katnipball who wrote (3957)	4/9/1999 7:32:00 PM
From: Zeus549	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4230

Katnipball, thanks for the info. I haven't seen it, but will try to check it out tomorrow when I have some time. At least a filing is a step in the right direction.

To: katnipball who wrote (3957)	4/10/1999 11:11:00 AM
From: Zeus549	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4230

Katnipball, I did have a little time this AM to review the Form10-12G that they filed yesterday. I've only done a very cursory look so am not getting too excited one way or another. First thing I was looking for though was to see who did the audit. I don't see anywhere on there that the CPA firm from Texas that I thought they hired some months ago to review this whole three year "peer review" did so? Did I overlook something. I see in another post that Pistol is asking the same question so I assume I am correct on this? I'll have to go back now and read some of their press releases but I was certain that somewhere they said they had retained a stateside CPA firm. I did see a couple of things that don't seem to add up. The sharecount at one point was less than a couple of quarters previous to it--that can't be right.The total share count is given as of 12/31/98 was about 18 million, but that doesn't tell us what it is as of today.I realize that this document apparently for accounting purposes appears to only go through the end of the year but at the rate they were adding shares, I don't have a great deal of confidence that the 18 million figure is correct. So far the biggest thing though for me is the CPA deal. The SLOGS on Yahoo have been insisting for several months now that this whole process was taking so long because this stateside CPA firm had to do a complete and comprehensive peer review and that that is why it was taking so long. Also didn't see all the footnotes that I hate to have to read all over the place on most audited documents. Frankly, at this point I don't know what to think overall just yet.