InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

MinnieM

01/05/19 8:42 PM

#253497 RE: scottsmith #253496

Do you know that they did for sure? I don't know who paid for it, but, I'm glad the info got out again. Here's what I said in an earlier post.

My guess is that the MFO wanted more exposure and paid for it. Someone mentioned that to me privately and the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. But, we'll never know and it doesn't matter. It's good to get the information out. ;)







In Reply to 'scottsmith'
Is that why the mfo paid for the baystreet article?





icon url

loanranger

01/05/19 9:03 PM

#253500 RE: scottsmith #253496

IF the MFO paid the 1800 bucks for the Baystreet article they would have done it for the usual reason...to support the price to allow for more profitable share sales. If the article added just a penny it would only take 180,000 shares in volume to pay for it.

850 preferred shares were converted to common as of the close on 11/12. We don't know how much of the resulting common was sold (or if any more was issued) but at a dime each (hypothetically) they could have been converted into about 9M shares (at 15 cents it would be closer to 6M).
The point is that 180,000 shares wouldn't be a big number for the MFO and the idea that they might have laid out the $1800 isn't far fetched. Then again I suspect that there are more than a handful of investors who could justify taking that risk.