Replies to post #73127 on Expo Holdings Inc. (EXPH)

[Renee]

Jeremiah : I would like to present answers that seem to be root causes for the extreme criticism ( by some / many ) against JDB and the other insiders .

To my recollection the EXPH insiders held approximately 320 million
common shares when those shares were converted from Preferred last year .

EXPH went on an earth-shattering news blitz simultaneous to that time frame , eg., Lowes , Newell Rubbermaid , Stanley Tool , truckloads of finished material leaving the facility , $100 million revenue projections , etcetera .

As we know EXPH's PPS ran past .03 cents on those earth-shattering news releases .

The insiders' ~ 320 million shares valued at a .03 cent average would equal $9,600,000 .....more or less from .025 to .0035 cents .

Speed forward to todays close of .0009 cents and those same ~ 320 million shares are now worth $288,000 , a whopping difference of approximately $9,300,000 .

Throughout the time-span from the average of .03+ cents to .0009 the insiders have steadfastly refused to file any type of confirmation filing that they did not sell their vast amounts of shares . Nor has the company filed any Financials to corroborate ANY of those earth-shattering news releases from yore .

To the more skeptical skeptic it appears that either JDB and the insiders are either dumber than a bag-o-hammers for not cashing out at over $9 million smackerooskis ....or morally bereft if they did sell for ~ $9 million while hood-winking everyone else with those cotton-pickin earth-shattering news releases .

I can hear the arguments ringing in my ears from *some* SOR's that JDB and his posse of Dudley-Do-Right Insiders are long-term holders who don't care about the *cough cough* temporary set-backs to EXPH's PPS since they are in for the long haul , but those arguments would be indefensible when EXPH continues to say lots and prove NOTHING !!

Thank goodness I am a reasonable skeptic who simply insists that the carpenters from North Wilkesboro prove their share ownership with a continuous timeline from the moment they converted their Preferred Shares to Common . Showing they own vast millions today means nothing without that evidenciary timeline because they could still have sold for $9 million bucks and then bought back for about $200,000 at .0006-ish .

So , dumber than a bag-o-hammers or morally bereft ? A big question ( to *moi* ) with no answer .

SOR stands for Shareholders on record , but could arguably stand for Shareholders On Ritalin for anyone who doesn't insist on verifiable transparency from the North Wilkesboro carpenters .

As I see it ,

Renee

[99leadballoons]

It is very simple Jeremiah.

First is the obvious that you have already stated. No forms filed.

Management stated prior when they converted from common to preferred that this would increase shareholder value. Then they ended up converting back. Well which is it???

There was an obvious build up to launch day with tons of false news. Then the relentless dumping volume that followed leaves only two explanations. Either massive dumping or some crazy random made up conspiracy theory.

So basically investors are left to believe that management refuses to file a free form, saw huge selling volume, have yet to see any of the claims made by mgmt even sniff coming to fruition, and all the while remembering that in January of 2007 mgmt's holdings were made public on their initial disclosure statement. So if the info was once available, mgmt claims to have never sold, why isn't the info simply readily available again???

Why try and find some super secret random explanation? I just tend to go with the obvious.

Management has much to gain from people believing they never sold and much to lose from people realizing that they did.

Throw on top of all of that the false claims that mgmt's shares were restricted as well as the false claims by mgmt that in order to sell they would have to file forms and could only sell a certain % of their holdings at a given time. There is no such rule at all for a non reporting pink.