Replies to post #9086 on Veltex Corporation (VLXC)

[kingnazzikanazzer]

invest, let me run this scenario by you that may explain all three of your old PRs. Also, I apoligize for my child-like insults.

If Veltex technically wasn't a wholly-owned in 2003, the following PRs would make sense:

1. $5 million dollar revenue miss (assumes that a third party owns approx 20% - 25% of Veltex Mill, and,
2. The need to issue additional shares for 100% ownership by Veltex of Velvet Mill.
3. Perhaps Invest is, or in part, correct as to the reason Velvet Mills didn't roll-up in 2003 as a consolidating sub.

I see how 1., 2, and 3. are consistent now. BUT, that was 2003. In 2005, Matin is stating that Velvet is a 100% owned subsidiary. Remember that unexplained share increase last Fall? It all fits, IMO.

I want to thank invest1980 for continuing his effort of raising the tough issues to bring clarity to Veltex despite my immaturity. I think I finally understand what's transpired.

[invest1980]

Thanks. No hard fellings as far as I am concerned.

[SAMNOTSAMUEL]

INVEST1980,

The biggest focal appoint on criticising Matin is his credibility. That is a nice way to put it. Clearly he has a very bad track record.

That is why the reported orders last week giving names and dollar figures is very important. This is hopefully a reason to believe somewhat. For big orders to come from other companies, this has to lead one to think that Veltex is not a complete scam and really does have potential.

What though is the company ultimately worth. I don't think any of us can know at this time. It is a reasonable speculation whenever it can be bought under $1.

sam