(Total Views: 386)
Posted On: 01/10/2017 11:47:49 AM
Post# of 22940
I see where you are coming from, just attaching the following tweets from Bill's account, for what it's worth..you can say he is bsing just to keep us happy, but I think he really is doing all this for the benefit of TPAC..
"We didn't request an increase in AS. It is the law in Wyoming. We moved from Nevada to save close to $10,000 annually in fees."
"Our plan throughout 2017 is to substantially reduce the number of outstanding shares through buybacks."
"Yes. The purpose wasn't to increase AS. We'd have done it anyway for cost savings and for an internal reason we won't discuss"
and the following are Bill's posts here on this board:
"the purpose of the move to Wyoming is driven by costs. The annual fees in Nevada are close to $10,000, whereas Wyoming fees are a tad over $400"
"The Wyoming statute calls for unlimited authorized shares. This is not a TPAC request, but the statute in Wyoming. This had nothing to do with the decision to move. The decision was predicated solely upon cost savings."
"We didn't request an increase in AS. It is the law in Wyoming. We moved from Nevada to save close to $10,000 annually in fees."
"Our plan throughout 2017 is to substantially reduce the number of outstanding shares through buybacks."
"Yes. The purpose wasn't to increase AS. We'd have done it anyway for cost savings and for an internal reason we won't discuss"
and the following are Bill's posts here on this board:
"the purpose of the move to Wyoming is driven by costs. The annual fees in Nevada are close to $10,000, whereas Wyoming fees are a tad over $400"
"The Wyoming statute calls for unlimited authorized shares. This is not a TPAC request, but the statute in Wyoming. This had nothing to do with the decision to move. The decision was predicated solely upon cost savings."
(5)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
