posted
I am a voter not a lawyer, or english teacher. According to the law, I only have to be able to spell my name. I only get that wrong a couple times a day. HA!
quote:Originally posted by MTPromises: Rufus is clarifying that the 6 shares was figured when the price was closer to $2.20 and that's how we would have received our "$15"
isn't the formula (15 / X) - X?
So (15 / 2.20) - 2.20 = 4.618 rounded down to 4, this would give our holdings *less* value than (15 / 1.86) - 1.86 = 6.2 rounded down to 6.
Am I wrong here?? What am I missing?
Btw Hello all, long time lurker first time poster, long shareholder since late Sept.
Yeah, it doesn't make sense at all. I think they just got the formula backwards, and don't want to admit it. The formula should be (15 - x) / x, which would give us 7 new shares.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MTPromises: Rufus is clarifying that the 6 shares was figured when the price was closer to $2.20 and that's how we would have received our "$15"
isn't the formula (15 / X) - X?
So (15 / 2.20) - 2.20 = 4.618 rounded down to 4, this would give our holdings *less* value than (15 / 1.86) - 1.86 = 6.2 rounded down to 6.
Am I wrong here?? What am I missing?
Btw Hello all, long time lurker first time poster, long shareholder since late Sept.
Yeah, it doesn't make sense at all. I think they just got the formula backwards, and don't want to admit it. The formula should be (15 - x) / x, which would give us 7 new shares.
It is actually very simple, and yes you are missing it a bit. The key was Rufus's second comment last night. The 10K was filed and he said after the EOD he had to go back and fix the PR.
His 6:1 in the 10K was filed first and they were anticipating a close on or above 2.20 that day. 2.20 x 7 = 15.40... but as he said the price dropped and he had to go run the numbers again and fix the PR. 1.80 x 7 = 12.60
The equation was just a way for him to justify the 6:1 ratio evaluation. He had the 10K out there but could not change the 6:1 so he had to fix the PR. It just came out less. If it would have closed at or above 2.20 we would not be having this conversation because 6 additional shares would have been more than the total promised. As he said, "I guess I screwed you, go ahead and complain about the FREE shares."
posted
This letter being hand delivered to the office of the esteemed Lloyd Doggett, legendary and highly respected Representative from Texas.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
10/27/2006
Attn: Rep. Lloyd Doggett Re: SEC vs Conversion Solutions Holdings Corp, Cause No 1:06-CV-2568
Mr. Doggett,
Due to a recent series of unsettling events, I am compelled to inform you of a disturbing situation unfolding in US District Court in Atlanta. I have, for the last four months, been following the story of a young company called Conversion Solutions operating out of Georgia. The company, to this point, has been focusing on raising capital which it intends to use to fund a wide variety of very decent and humanitarian initiatives. Please visit www.cvsu.us to learn more about the goals of this company.
As time has passed, the CEO, Rufus Paul Harris has done a wonderful job updating shareholders like me on the progress of the company's dealings. Some of the items discussed were:
- Multiple bonds that have been acquired by Conversion Solutions Holdings Corp - Involvement in an environmentally-minded initiative in the form of a partnership with the Brazilian government geared toward Amazonian Rain Forest preservation and carbon sequestration. - A joint venture with Georgia Aerospace, Inc. that will provide services and products to the American military forces and potentially NASA
One of these topics, the several bonds under the control of Conversion Solutions, is being brought into question by the SEC right now in Atlanta - civil action number 1:06-CV-2568. While I respect the authority and role of the SEC in protecting investors, the SEC accusations in this case are perplexing considering the fact that their primary source of evidentiary investigation was the financial information website Bloomberg and the complaint letters sent to them by a few biased people who do not want to see this company succeed to due financial or personal reasons.
The integrity of the officers of this company is being called into question and the trading of the OTCBB stock CSHD has been halted despite the fact that all necessary bond documentation has been filed as public record with the Secretary of State in Georgia UCC filings department for many months.
While I am no expert on the matters at hand, it does not take an expert to do the minimal amount of research that would have been required to satisfy any of the bond-related questions cited in the SEC complaint. There are several internet communities following these events and they have all been able to find the documentation that the SEC experts apparently were unable or unwilling to locate.
In light of the recent negative publicity surrounding the SEC and the John Mack story, one would think the SEC would be critically working to improve its internal oversight. Yet here we are looking at what can only be described as an inept waste of the judicial system's time at the expense of the very investors the SEC is charged with protecting.
There is more to this story than I have included in this letter. In the interest of brevity, I am asking for a few minutes of time from you or one of your staff members to contact any of the officers of Conversion Solutions or the district Court in Atlanta for more information on this developing situation. This is not your ordinary small struggling company. Conversion Solutions is on the brink of some very big things on an international scale and these odd proceedings have the potential to escalate in the very near future.
Conversion Solution Contact Information:
Conversion Solutions Holdings Corp. 125 TownPark Drive Suite 300 Kennesaw, GA 30144 Phone: (770) 420-8270 Fax: (404) 393-9824
Officers: Rufus Harris - Chairman, Chief Executive Officer Ben Stanley – Director, Chief Operating Officer Sabra Dabbs – Corporate Secretary Mitchell Sepaniak - Executive Vice President of Operations
Any assistance you can offer in getting to the bottom of this story would be highly appreciated.
Thank you for your time and best wishes in your continuing service to the citizens of Texas and the United States.
posted
Tax (and others), you might want to send hard copies with your signature on them. When I sent my letters to my Senator, he replied back that they needed a hard copy of my signature. Here's the exact response:
*** If you are having a problem with a specific government agency, the Federal Privacy Act of 1974 requires that I have your written authorization, signed by you, in order to contact the agency about the problem.
IP: Logged |
posted
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by minkybodl: Rufus said last night "ha ha yeah maybe we got it backwards" 15-2.2= 12.8/2.2=5.81 rounded up to 6. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did he say he would go back and change it? I dont think he has a time machine yet
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MTPromises: Rufus is clarifying that the 6 shares was figured when the price was closer to $2.20 and that's how we would have received our "$15"
isn't the formula (15 / X) - X?
So (15 / 2.20) - 2.20 = 4.618 rounded down to 4, this would give our holdings *less* value than (15 / 1.86) - 1.86 = 6.2 rounded down to 6.
Am I wrong here?? What am I missing?
Btw Hello all, long time lurker first time poster, long shareholder since late Sept.
Yeah, it doesn't make sense at all. I think they just got the formula backwards, and don't want to admit it. The formula should be (15 - x) / x, which would give us 7 new shares.
It is actually very simple, and yes you are missing it a bit. The key was Rufus's second comment last night. The 10K was filed and he said after the EOD he had to go back and fix the PR.
His 6:1 in the 10K was filed first and they were anticipating a close on or above 2.20 that day. 2.20 x 7 = 15.40... but as he said the price dropped and he had to go run the numbers again and fix the PR. 1.80 x 7 = 12.60
The equation was just a way for him to justify the 6:1 ratio evaluation. He had the 10K out there but could not change the 6:1 so he had to fix the PR. It just came out less. If it would have closed at or above 2.20 we would not be having this conversation because 6 additional shares would have been more than the total promised. As he said, "I guess I screwed you, go ahead and complain about the FREE shares."
If it would have closed at 2.20 the equation still would've been wrong. How did they come up with the 6:1 in the first place? They used the equation (15-x)/x, which was 6 when the price was 2.20. When the price fell to 1.86 it went up to 7:1. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about it; I'm happy with 6 shares, but we did get "screwed" on the reset.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by minkybodl: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by minkybodl: Rufus said last night "ha ha yeah maybe we got it backwards" 15-2.2= 12.8/2.2=5.81 rounded up to 6. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did he say he would go back and change it? I dont think he has a time machine yet
Ever hear of an amendment, smart-ass?
IP: Logged |
Please stop the nonsense. Your greed is blinding you. Rufus has gifted all shareholders of the 16th with more than you can imagine and you are now complaining?
If I were to place bets, I'd say the only ones making this an issue are those that didn't have shares when the 10k came out.
The market cap will determine how high the PPS goes. Do you think the market cap will be higher with 7 or 8 shares extra vs. 6? Those that got the extra shares own the same % of the company regardless of 6 or 7 shares. Please people, stop making this an issue because it isn't one.
IF, big IF, there's a collection of investors that do want to get together and force the issue, I'm sure there will be a larger collection of investors to stop it.
IP: Logged |
posted
hey glass, chart, bb, or anyone, if this is going to be as big as it seems to be do any of you feel that is why it was postponed until after the elections? just a thought i would like anyone's input on, and thanks in advance.
quote:Originally posted by jm430: ALL concerned about the extra shares...
Please stop the nonsense. Your greed is blinding you. Rufus has gifted all shareholders of the 16th with more than you can imagine and you are now complaining?
If I were to place bets, I'd say the only ones making this an issue are those that didn't have shares when the 10k came out.
The market cap will determine how high the PPS goes. Do you think the market cap will be higher with 7 or 8 shares extra vs. 6? Those that got the extra shares own the same % of the company regardless of 6 or 7 shares. Please people, stop making this an issue because it isn't one.
IF, big IF, there's a collection of investors that do want to get together and force the issue, I'm sure there will be a larger collection of investors to stop it.
Wasn't that the argument of the bashers, that the price would adjust as in a forward split? I thought we all agreed that wasn't going to happen.
By the way, I was holding on the 16th, and will get my 6 shares. Fact is though, whether you're happy with 6 or not, it should've been 7; no amount of rationalizing can change that.
IP: Logged |
posted
Can someone explain to me again the "free shares" concept? Isn't the whole thing that the company is worth like $77 per current share and so after the new shares are issued you will have $11 per 7 shares (1 + 6 free). How is this different than a forward split?
IP: Logged |
posted
Slim and everyone. Maybe we should get out from under the FRAUD INVESTIGATION before we worry about how BIG this will get. I am long here and have been (on and off) since it was .22 as FHAL, but even I know that there is a better than 50% chance that this thing will either never trade again, or trade at subpenny forever. We need Rufus to pull a rabbit out of his hat on Nov 7th or else every cent we have in CSHD as of this moment is gone.
-------------------- "I will smack you in the mouth, I'm Neil Diamond"- Will Ferrell
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PCola77: Can someone explain to me again the "free shares" concept? Isn't the whole thing that the company is worth like $77 per current share and so after the new shares are issued you will have $11 per 7 shares (1 + 6 free). How is this different than a forward split?
The difference is more of a procedural technicality. In a perfect market the net effect of either action should be the same.
posted
Penny_player, the math does not make sense. That is true. It's a non-issue, though.
Don't twist my words. I didn't say the price would adjust like in a forward split. Do you understand how market caps and outstanding shares work? There's a reason why the book value was originally $70+ and will be, after the split, $11+. What do you think it would have been had you gotten 7 shares extra? Yes, less than $9.
Again, non-issue...you own the same % of the company after the free shares as you did before.
IP: Logged |
posted
So if you have 7 shares worth $11 or 8 shares (7 free) worth $9.625, what's the difference, or are people somehow thikning they 8 shares would be worth $11 each too, and if so, how would that make sense?
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jm430: ALL concerned about the extra shares...
Please stop the nonsense. Your greed is blinding you. Rufus has gifted all shareholders of the 16th with more than you can imagine and you are now complaining?
If I were to place bets, I'd say the only ones making this an issue are those that didn't have shares when the 10k came out.
The market cap will determine how high the PPS goes. Do you think the market cap will be higher with 7 or 8 shares extra vs. 6? Those that got the extra shares own the same % of the company regardless of 6 or 7 shares. Please people, stop making this an issue because it isn't one.
IF, big IF, there's a collection of investors that do want to get together and force the issue, I'm sure there will be a larger collection of investors to stop it.
I honestly don't care about the number. My concern is for Rufus and CSHD. I don't want them to get into any more trouble with the SEC compliance department.
I'm "moderately" concerned about the SEC coming after them again if they do not deliver on what was promised in writing. Again, the issue isn't greed for me its just a matter of compliance for the greater good of the company.
Hell, I would pass on those free shares if it meant we could start trading today.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SLIMPICKENS: i am just wondering if that is why the SEC stepped in, just to postpone until the elections are over. just a thought.
quote:Originally posted by jm430: Penny_player, the math does not make sense. That is true. It's a non-issue, though.
Don't twist my words. I didn't say the price would adjust like in a forward split. Do you understand how market caps and outstanding shares work? There's a reason why the book value was originally $70+ and will be, after the split, $11+. What do you think it would have been had you gotten 7 shares extra? Yes, less than $9.
Again, non-issue...you own the same % of the company after the free shares as you did before.
Okay, so why should we get any shares at all then? Mathematically you are absolutely correct, it's all the same % of the pie, but psychologically it is easier for the stock to rise to $9 even with more shares than it will be to get to $11.78, just as it's going to be easier to get to $11 than it would've been to reach $70
IP: Logged |
posted
On Ibash we have the bashers trying to organize a class action suit for some reason and then trying to figure out if Rufus was evicted in 2003. And here we are trying to figure out if Rufus brought on an SEC fraud investigation as some type of political move.
:doniboy shakes his head: why did I start trading penny stocks??????
-------------------- "I will smack you in the mouth, I'm Neil Diamond"- Will Ferrell
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SLIMPICKENS: i am just wondering if that is why the SEC stepped in, just to postpone until the elections are over. just a thought.
humble i would like to hear your thoughts on this
Everything I have seen and read leads me to believe that a vast majority of the corruption between the SEC, DTCC and high level investment companies is driven by a lack of oversight and enforcement coupled with greed for easy money. This does not mean that any particular party or players are directly involved. To that extent I doubt that election time comes into play here.
Remember, this system was set in place years ago. I am not sure too many of the current people in power could be held directly accountable for anything other than ignorance.
quote:Originally posted by RyanPBF: humble what's your gut feeling so far? After listening to Rufus last night how do you think this case is going to go?
Last night did nothing for me. We did not really learn anything we did not know or at least surmise (except that Nov 7th is the definitive next stop). In ten days we will have new information. Until then we are all stuck.
posted
Using that logic, why not give a million free shares because it's easier to get to a penny than $9? Why issue any at all?
quote:Originally posted by penny_player:
quote:Originally posted by jm430: Penny_player, the math does not make sense. That is true. It's a non-issue, though.
Don't twist my words. I didn't say the price would adjust like in a forward split. Do you understand how market caps and outstanding shares work? There's a reason why the book value was originally $70+ and will be, after the split, $11+. What do you think it would have been had you gotten 7 shares extra? Yes, less than $9.
Again, non-issue...you own the same % of the company after the free shares as you did before.
Okay, so why should we get any shares at all then? Mathematically you are absolutely correct, it's all the same % of the pie, but psychologically it is easier for the stock to rise to $9 even with more shares than it will be to get to $11.78, just as it's going to be easier to get to $11 than it would've been to reach $70
Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 360 Everyone that listened very closely to the interview last night should have come away with a very good feeling that everything should turn out very well in our favour. Listening to the interview you can tell that everything has to be as Rufus stated and he was very confident that the outcome should be in all our favours at least by 7th if not sooner.
IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
