Replies to post #91912 on TheDirectory.com Inc (SEEK)

[malekabal42]

I agree with you. I'm a long here and am profitable. Longs have been able to make a profit here despite an unclear picture of SEEK's revenues. I'm not sure Scott's reasoning makes sense. He just stated that revenues were as high in the last qtr as the entire year, correct?

[tommyedwards]

Authorized Shares 3,501,000,000 as of Nov 11, 2013 so the additional would be 2.5 billion. Otherwise, I concur.

I sent a four paragraph letter to SG after hearing of the increase and expressed to him my concerns. Yes, it may be better to increase the "Authorized Shares" in comparison to a reverse split, but only temporarily, if there isn't sufficient tactic behind the increase. If we simply dish out IOUs without gaining any long term value, then when a reverse split is finally performed shareholders could experience much greater dilution. At that point shareholders may no longer be the #1 priority of SEEK, but possible Yahoo, Microsoft, or Google. Any of those top institutions would be very adamant of the final share structure before making an offer. Our focus should be to make certain that Scott keeps shareholder value as a priority. Reversing his 1 billion shares could keep him well within big profits, but could ultimately hurt the loyal retail community. (IMO)

Looking forward to the conference call.

PS. I've also reminded SG that he provided no mention of a necessity for increasing the "Authorized Shares" to meet the requirement of the $5 million credit facility during the Dec 19th conference call. Unless, the reference was linked to a prior conference call (Oct) where SG had mentioned the restricted share issuance and 6 month hold requirement before exercising as part of the credit deal to the institution...

[pt trader]

Rhumphre1: I just read where you said you wrote SG a4 paragraph letter. Would you PLEASE post the responce from SG if you get one. Thank You very much.