% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.


  • ymymail51 Jul 31, 2012 9:03 AM Flag


    Should there be plausible deal, would Mac change his vote on proposal 2?
    I think so. He would be crazy not to, and he does not strike me as crazy. Angry, yes - crazy, no.

    So, yes there is hope, but we need a deal that makes SGGH profitable enough to monetize those NOLs. Profitable enough means profits of $50 - $100 million in annual profits. SGGH could then use those NOLs in maybe 10 years.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • If we allow more shares, these crooks will never be voted out! They will continue to give themselves more and more shares while wasting our money fighting every legit claim (OEC's attorney fees) and MAC's dilution to name a couple. At this point, I hope someone (BIGMAC) takes these crooks to court and try's to prosecute them! They are going to lose or take everything we have anyways!

      The only way more shares should be issued or voted for is if they have a deal in place. I'm ok with it if they had a clause saying more shares can only be issued for a reverse merger. That is it...EITHER VOTE THEM OUT NEXT YEAR or WE HAVE A REVERSE MERGER DEAL. NO IN BETWEEN!!!!

    • No, I don't think Mac should change his vote on Proposal 2. But I don't want him to be close minded to anything that Signature brings to the table. I believe, given the circumstances, this was a pretty good outcome for shareholders.

      If the vote sticks and get certified, it means that Signature likely has to come to the shareholders for approval on an increase in shares issued (presumably to be used in a reverse merger type transaction). That gives shareholders leverage, and they can then dole out the minimum amount needed to get a deal done without more being siphoned off by Signature or the Board.

      To me this is just basically a message to Signature to come back to shareholders when they have a deal in place, and the shares can be voted on then.

      • 2 Replies to rockraider3
      • ymymail51 Aug 2, 2012 11:36 AM Flag

        That is EXACTLY what I initially thought - if the company needs shares as currency they can simply go back to the shareholders. However, a hedge manager that I respect told me that a deal staying on the table is much less likely if the shareholders must be solicited for approval.

        Reasons given are as follows:
        It adds a substantial amount of uncertainty. What company is going to invest weeks and months of manpower and diligence, and thousands, even millions of expenses if a certain faction of dissatisfied shareholders can make all their efforts moot?

        It is a basic tenet of business that one negotiates with the decision maker(s). The shareholders will never have all the information required to make a decision of this kind(whether to use shares as a currency in a transaction). It will boil down to whether the share price will increase dramatically and IMMEDIATELY. That is certainly a factor, but quite possibly not the only consideration.

        The bottom line is do you think there is a good board in place that will look after the interests of shareholder? If so, you need to give them the tools to do their job. If not, you should sell.

      • <<<To me this is just basically a message to Signature to come back to shareholders when they have a deal in place, and the shares can be voted on then.>>>>>

        dead on Rockraider3!

        About time you stop patting yourself on the back with our shares and get a dang darn deal done and not screw us before,during or after the deal!


        ALWAYS,,,,,,, IMHO of course!

    • Good bye Carl Icahn.

    • nobody here unless they are Carl Icahn has more investment experience. Believe what you guys will. Bye

    • <<<takes months to get financials in order>>>

      You are a clueless newbie.....

      If you would have done your DD you would have found your favorite management group failed to hire an accountant type until it was almost 2 late.

      They called it accounting deficiency.


    • takes months to get financials in order, but hey was it one 100% right, of course not, I give them 35-50%, but we are where are and thats xxxx Mac, who, seems weirdly clueless. But maybe I was talking with Choco..hopefully not...

    • If they made 50 to 100 million in annual profits, this stock would fly. Wishful thinking...they can't make 2 cents profit. Maybe 2 cents a year in annual profits and we could use the NOL's over the next 3 Billion years....LOL

      • 1 Reply to wmikeh26
      • ymymail51 Jul 31, 2012 10:07 AM Flag

        I am serious. I believe there is an expiration on the NOLs. I don't know if it is 10 or 20 years or some other period. The NOLs are our single biggest asset - or I should say potential asset.

        Your job here seems to bash and make fun of the management and new board, but the election is over, so it's pointless. I guess even posting anything on this board is pointless - it will not change anything.