Replies to post #95183 on Expo Holdings Inc. (EXPH)

[patchman]

isn't it odd that it took the sec
approx one year to give a *CONSISTENT*
answer re: the subject of EXPH FTDS
that went MIA ~ *oddly* enough on july
30th 2009 .. when for 2 years and 1
month .. FTDS *SHOWED* with regularity
<june 2007 to july 30th 2009>

I have seen no such public statement by the SEC. If you are talking about private phone calls that can not be verified, or that went to any number of different people within the SEC, that is not consistency related, that is systemic as to how the SEC works.

Do not confuse consistency with generic response. The SEC attorney's do not have EXPH on their radar. a phone call to any individual and asking a specific question will get you generic responses. As to the final answer received, it appears that no long wants to give out the details on who to speak to that actually DID the research being explained. hmmmmmmm

[AStTropaz]

We intend to discontinue execution for the securities on the attached list

Gee, EXPH made the list. Are congratulations in order?!

[AStTropaz]

For various reasons, certain securities cannot be made DTCC-eligible or have had their eligibility revoked, usually due to operating or financial issues with the underlying company.

The point here is why does EXPO come out with their web updates re: DTC eligible when it is clear where they rest. It's like their continued head fake to address MIA's when their intention is to continue "as is". Any one see the financials for 2010 or Form 3's? Ohhhhhh?!