Replies to post #78198 on CBA Florida Inc. (fka CBAI)

[Nebuchadnezzar]

what is the latest share structure? OS?

my guess is around 150M

if you don;t know, please find out

[tbk420]

Good morning...Paul!

Today, I'd like to discuss the effect of avoiding obvious questions and answers. On two separate occasions, IR has completely ignored a very obvious question, under the claimed guise of not reading my post.

Now, I realize CBAI assumes most of it's investors are complete idiots - otherwise, why would they have fallen for Matt's flowery promises, right? But even the dumbest shareholder can tell when someone is intentionally avoiding a question.

But at some point, silence would seem to be an admission.

So, I suppose I'll break it down for IR one more time. CBAI may think that the investors are dumb enough not to realize the obvious discrepancy, but I tend to think that they will take notice if IR refuses to own it's own past statements. In the event that there is another attempt at deflection, it would mark the third time, and I think we can all accept that there will never be an answer - because it is too embarrassing.

These facts are known:

1. The DTC chill occurred in December 2010. Matt knew of it at this time, yet also specifically planned a R/S.

2. In early 2011, Matt stated it was a good time to buy CBAI, while knowing of these two facts. At the time, CBAI had not yet revealed the chill or planned R/S to the investing public. Since no one wants to believe that he would deceive investors, it will be assumed that he actually DID believe it was a good time to buy, which means he at least did not appreciate the effects of a R/S while chilled.

3. Despite the chill, Matt went forward with the R/S. In support of the R/S, Matt outlines many goals - uplisting, better financing, attraction of "strategic investors" - none of which actually came true following the split.

4. When the ensuing devastation to the PPS occurred, IR made many "Compensated Awareness" posts, in which the DTC was blamed for the negative effect on the PPS. On several occasions, IR CLEARLY places the blame directly on the DTC and the chill for CBAI's loss of credibility. IR goes on to say that this credibility can only be rebuilt with time and hard work.


Now Paul, we do agree on something. Namely, that Matt has damaged his credibility in a monumental fashion. What we appear to disagree on is the cause of this problem. I have outlined many, many instances of what I believe to be examples of Matt's ill-advised failed promises, but I'm really just trying to understand CBAI's proferred reason for the loss of credibility - the DTC chill.
---------------------
pknopick

Share
Wednesday, December 14, 2011 10:38:58 AM
Re: tbk420 post# 73631

Post # of 78185

The DTC chill after the reverse caused eight weeks of Hell for this company, we lost credibility with investors, indeed through no guilt of our own, and it will take time and patience and accomplishments to restore that credibility.
--------------------------------
pknopick

Share
Saturday, September 10, 2011 9:49:40 PM
Re: robbie1165 post# 67578

Post # of 78185
This is what I believe: ..... I think the DTC caused this year to be horrible but I believe CBAI can rise from this.
----------------------------------


It confuses me how the DTC chill caused the loss of credibililty. Matt knew for months prior to the R/S that CBAI was chilled. I'm assuming that he did what ANY competent CEO would do under such circumstances, and obtained legal advice on the effects of a chill (particularly on a planned R/S), as well as doing independent research on the effects of the chill:
----------------------------------
"pknopick

Share
Tuesday, September 13, 2011 1:45:11 PM
Re: None

Post # of 78227

Regarding "chill," here is news from a company that has been "chilled" for two years, that has made 50 calls to the DTC, that has done everything asked for it, and still doesn't know why it was chilled. If you go to Goggle, you can see plenty of other examples, for all of those who write to us in disbelief that DTC won't tell us why the "chill."

Paul Knopick
[e-mail]
949.707.5365
----------------------------------------
See that, Paul - YOU were able to find important information about the effects of a chill by using the sophisticated technique of doing a Google search. In fact, you have told investors on several occasions that there are MANY examples of companies being ruined by a chill.

So here we find ourselves again.....the painful and embarrassing logical question many investors have, and what I believe horribly damaged Matt's credibility:

Since information about the negative effects of a chill (and the many companies ruined by them) is readily available, and assuming Matt also consulted with legal counsel about it, it truly begs the question why Matt felt the time was right for a R/S? (for purposes of this discussion, we'll even disregard Matt's statement that he wouldn't R/S until the "true value" of the stock emerged).

Please remember that those were the words Matt used in support of the R/S - "the time is now". The fateful day that Matt released his PR outlining the reasons a R/S should occur at that time, was the day he squarely put his credibility on the line.

Since IR has openly blamed the DTC for his subsequent loss of credibility, IR should address the above problem with that reasoning - why Matt apparently did not appreciate the gravity of the DTC situation, and that it likely would effect the outcome of any grand promises he made. Did he REALLY think that uplisting would occur with a chill? Did he REALLY think strategic investors would come in, despite the chill? Did he REALLY think better financing could occur, while the electronic transfer of shares was chilled? If so, then WHY DID HE THINK THIS, especially when most information shows that a chill is rarely lifted?

I would welcome any clarification, that would not only put my mind at ease about this topic, but likely many other investors as well. IR is compensated to make us aware, so I hope a clear response is forthcoming. Really, the only bad response is no response at all. It would mark the third direct avoidance of the topic, and I would personally take that as a sign that this is being ignored like the many other embarrassing skeletons in the closet.

Thanks for any light you can shed, Paul.