InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 400
Posts 48613
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 06/20/2011

Re: buddha12 post# 71454

Wednesday, 10/10/2012 5:46:22 PM

Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:46:22 PM

Post# of 97615
You are exactly right. I would not expect financing to come without equity in return in a situation like this. But what has peaked my interest is the lack of transparency in this most fundamental of questions....and what appears to be an attempt to obfuscate the issue by carefully chosen wording...instead of just saying it like it is. Although some would not want to acknowledge the risk here, what did GTGP have to contribute? In reality a 1% ownership would satisfy all statements, PR's and 8K's to date.

Looking at it another way, what does the "investment bank" care about GTGP beyond its equity contribution. They only care about how the private entity is going to be divvied up. There is a reason that it was set up this way. The explanation is that an investment bank would not invest in a small publicly traded company. So GTHI is a big private company and more worthy of investment than GTGP? Nonsense, it is because they may have seen the writing on the wall for GTGP and its filing status and not wanted anywhere near it. The rationale given in the 8K rings a little hollow.

As I learned on another suspended stock that had an "acquisition" component....if something isn't clear....there is usually a reason...which it is will fall far short of common shareholders expectations.

Trust is a very dangerous thing in penny stocks.

We will see what unfolds.