Replies to post #15829 on ScripsAmerica Inc. (SCRCQ)

[coolerheadsprevail]

that info was from an email response. In my experience phone and email responses of that nature are common place with smaller companies.

@markjohn,

Understood. I hear what you are saying, but I would counter (or perhaps a better way to say it is not so much to counter but to elaborate), the times I am aware of companies making such statements privately are when those companies are so small that they do not have their own internal IR personnel and do not contract out w/a 3rd party IR firm to handle investor calls/correspondences. As such, these one (or two) man shows where the CEO does everything usually result in situations where the CEO is stepping into an area that is not his area of expertise and he/she walks a fine line (and at times crosses it) w/regards to unknowingly disclosing potentially inside information. Bottom line: If it is something that you want to tell one market participant, a company should publicly disclose it so ALL market participants have equal access.

That all being said, for the specific issues you asked Bob about, I am still surprised that he hasn't updated the Q&A yet. W/regards to China, the Q&A is now stale and obsolete and contains some misleading info now, especially in light of Hong Kong, which was never ever mentioned by SCRC before, and the fact that China is just now getting started when all the prior PR's and even the Q&A clearly stated China was in process already and expected to be approved by end of JAN-2014 at the latest.

But I actually disagree with one of his points re: Hong Kong vs China. IMO, he is spin-doctoring to say that HK is more valuable than China. Look at all the US companies and how they expanded into Asia. They took China before HK. No company takes HK instead of China. So long as China gets approved, then in the bigger picture of things, an extra 90 days is nothing. But there is no need to spin-doctor this aspect of the HK news.