InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 18
Posts 2056
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 03/11/2001

Re: WTMHouston post# 8028

Sunday, 12/22/2002 3:02:58 AM

Sunday, December 22, 2002 3:02:58 AM

Post# of 78729
WTM- It's very simple really. You're a sharp guy so this explanation will likely seem elementary but I just can't help myself.

1. The company owed money to officers/directors for services performed.

2. They paid them. (The officers/directors can now choose what they would like to do with the money because they own it.)

3. They CHOSE to reinvest the money back into the company.

I don't understand the difference between getting paid in stock in lieu of salaries and the scenario I just laid out. The end result is the same. They would rather have stock. You have absolutely NO basis for claiming you were mislead or that the PR was false. Could the PR have been more forthcoming? You bet. However, will you admit that despite the apparent lack of full disclosure of the details the end result is exactly the same? It was a paperwork shuffle and nothing more.

I don't know about you, but if I found out they were given the option to take cash or stock and they chose cash, I'd be a little worried, particularly being that we're so close. Best, Elder.

Join InvestorsHub

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.