Replies to post #66616 on KAT Exploration Inc (KATX)

[balihi]

Godsend74,Ken and company are serious,we dont work with the usual or everyday....auditors....geologists....TA's....mining companies....law firm....whats next?????

[Er0ck]

Your saying I am "way off" when I have been 100% correct in EVERYTHING I have said over the past 2 months? Yea thats "smart". It's funny how people can be right time and time again, and people just blow them off completely because their opinions don't match the other persons.

I have done plently of research on our TA and every other thing that has even the slightest thing to do with this company.

Why are you, and a few others sooooooooo focused on "China". First of all, the only thing we would be doing would be "Cross listing" over there. If we did this, which it's something Ken has indeed stated we were going to do, we would be doing it with BVIG, not KATX. To get listed on any major exchange you have to meet requirements, KATX does NOT meet all of these currently. I am not even completely sure BVIG would meet them all right now either.

If they are "working" on anything with our new TA, it would NOT be anything that would be happening anytime soon, as in something they would announce this week or next in a PR. Cross listing takes time, months to do and complete the process, and that is only if we even meet the requirements to what ever exchange we are looking at.

For me with what I know now , I dont give a rat's behind if it stirs in the teens for a little, Ken is moving this baby straight to NASDAQ, not BB. Quote me ..... Look at the NASDAQ requirements and I can show you since 05' and so will Michael B. that it has been trading for over 5 years, it will have the market cap needed, and shareholders to boot

You really have no idea what in the heck you are talking about. Your telling us to go and read the Nasdaq requirements? I think you better go re-read them your self.

You HAVE TO HAVE a average share price of $1 dollar or more for 90 days before you can uplist to the Nasdaq. And then you have to maintain the price above that level or risk being delisted.

In case you haven't noticed, we are not trading above $1 yet, nore anywhere close, nore have you done this for 90 days yet.

On top of this, Ken and their flow chart clearly state KATX is going to the OTC/BB via a reverse merger with another shell. Not only did they say that and show this, they also show us getting two more OTCBB subsidiarys under KATX GOLD.

We are no where close to going to the Nasdaq.

[Biochemist2002]

Re: NASDAQ listing and "a geologist is a geologist"

One geolisgest isn't going to do something differently than another one, they will all be looking and doing the same things in the field. ...any experianced geoligest would do a fine job.
-Er0ck

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=50436404

I have to respectfully disagree with the above opinion. I've worked with and hired a ton of "qualified" chemists, biologists, geochemists, etc. If I've learned anything from experience, it is this: a piece of paper (be it a degree or resume) can say you're "qualified" but it says absolutely nothing about your work ethic, your attitude, your ability to troubleshoot a tricky problem, and think on your feet. Science (any science) is as much an art as it is a science. There are a ton of "scientists" who have a degree and have "experience" but I would not want to work with nor hire them, especially if affects the quality of work coming out of my lab.

The same goes for any job, whether it be TA, law firm, auditor, accountant, marketing. Getting the right person for the job is absolutely crucial. After all, I think we all remember the debacle with the last filings (late, had errors and had to be re-uploaded a couple times). And this is exactly why Ken ditched that firm. Attention to detail, pride in one's work, and a drive to produce quality work is what distinguishes a "qualified" geologist (or TA, accountant, law firm, etc.) from an outstanding one.

Ken clearly has shareholder interest at heart.

As far as listing on NASDAQ, I wouldn't be surprised if Ken et. al. are looking at NASDAQ as longer term goal. But, I think it would almost have to be a longer term goal. Some have pointed out one basic reason, that is, the share price is less than $1 (or may even need to be $5 for NASDAQ) and has not traded at that price for 90 days. Now, having said that, I just don't know if there are legal exceptions to that rule, such as an interim listing on NASDAQ or the like-which may or may not be the case. I do know that a listed company risks being delisted if it drops below $1 for some period of time (depending on the exchange). Sure, there are forms the company can fill out in the mean time to stay listed, but I just don't know enough about the technicalities with the process.

Here's an interesting article on listing/delisting:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/02/032002.asp
Here's and excerpt:

Getting Listed
You can think of major stock exchanges such as the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and the Nasdaq as exclusive clubs. To get listed on a major exchange like the Nasdaq, a company must meet the minimum standards required by the exchange. On the Nasdaq, for example, a company must pay a $5,000 application fee in 2008 before its stock can even be considered for listing, and it can expect to pay between $100,000 and $150,000 in listing fees if successful.

As for other requirements, companies must meet minimum standards such as minimum stockholder's equity and a minimum number of shareholders, among many other things. Turning again to the Nasdaq as an example, a company must have at least 1.1 million public shares outstanding worth a total of at least $8 million and a share price of at least $5 per share before it can be considered for listing on the exchange. There are numerous other rules that apply, but until a company reaches these minimum thresholds, it has no chance of being listed on the Nasdaq. Similar requirements exist for the NYSE and other reputable exchanges around the world.