Replies to post #29912 on VirTra Inc (VTSI)

[ztect]

"Fear mongering"? Sorry Felix, there isn't any thing farther from the truth. Let's first have the company demonstrate that it will try to do what it can to support the share price for current shareholders before it enacts the r/s and undermines current shareholders's value.

Do you not believe that the CEO should comply with the reason why Sarbanes–Oxley Act was enacted? Wouldn't the CEO have even greater creditability with current investors and especially future institutional ones as well as all prospective clients if he did comply? Again the Sarbanes–Oxley Act mandates that senior executives take individual responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of corporate financial reports.

If Ferris is so outstanding, then doing an audit now using the resources the company is prepared to use post r/s to prop the price up, will remove any and all doubt and increase his credibility, as well as the current pps of the company positioning it for a r/s later with at least this audit requirement for listing already completed ...Meaning that the audit duck is already in row.

Do you also not believe that Don Andrus should demonstrate his belief in the company by owning more than $12,000 worth of shares? If Don was so successful in his prior position as Ferris claims, then certainly Don has the means to make a bigger investment now.
Do you not believe that Don buying more shares NOW in the company would be a demonstration of his belief in the company he helps direct? Do you really not believe that insider buying won't be a buy signal and help prop up the price pre-split?

Why is it "fear mongering" for current shareholders to request that its directors do what they can NOW for current shareholders to try to support the price to get the PPS up first before enacting a R/S so when that R/S is enacted to reduce the OS, the R/S won't have to be as high a ratio and an R/S will result in a more liquid OS of 10 to 20 mill shares rather than a less liquid one of 1.58 mill shares?

Do you really want every one to have blind faith, and believe uncritically everything said by management? Then call dissenters "fear mongers" if they raise questions particularly when management hitherto has not done all that they can to maintain current shareholder value.

[stormer]

negativity? Knowing that there are shareholders out there who are going to vote yes, and have voted yes on the RS and other amendments makes me think that the situation is already possibly hopeless.

--It is clear that NASDAQ was an afterthought. Virtra's CEO and COO can't be considered independent directors. And then reducing the number of directors isn't in line with the Nasdaq goal they claimed in the CC. Isn't it obvious why NASDAQ requires that the directors not be in cahoots with management, but instead represent the shareholders? Virtra's management are the directors!

--Why support the share price at $4 post RS, but not have audited financials? Of course, an audit is not an issue with a private company.

--I also don't buy the argument that the share price is a problem with potential foreign sales, yet a company with a pink sheet listed stock with unaudited financials doing a market-cap-killing 100:1 reverse split would not be an issue with those same foreign companies.

--Most of the amendments have to do with forking over even more shareholder power to the management/directors.

--I am still not clear on how many shares management is going to be compensated after the split .. not that it matters, they could always award themselves more shares without a split. However, it would not look as bad with 100 times fewer shares. How many years until they have most of the marbles? A couple hundred years, or a couple of years? A large RS reducing the shares to such a small number may make sense if there is going to be dilution.

If all of this sounds paranoid, a public company going private happens all the time. Look at Gander Mountain.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.