Joseph:
> If you sold over 2Million shares of something you did not own and
> you made a mistake and your average cost per share is too low,
> what would you do? What other choice do the shorts have?
> Supress the price...trying to scare the investors. How else can you
> cover if you are short other than the shareholders throwing in the
> towel?
Here we go again! Joe, stock does not go up or down because of some personal hostility against the company or the stock itself! With all do respect I can not make sense of one word of what you state above! If anyone can, please I would be most greatful to understand what is it Joe is talking about.
As far as XECM and going back to the fundamentals, Joe, I apprecaite you logical reasonable response to my comments (this was actually the first time you engaged yourself in real discussion of the company's fundamentals). But I still strongly disagree with you on the notion that one Sprint contract does establish the foundation of growth for XECM. A stock goes up if there are potentials for further revenue growth and earnings. One time contract simply does not do it. That one time contract generated some money for XECM. But again if you look at their earnings statements you will see that their revenue growth has gone down over 50% over the prior year. But that is besides the point. Lets assume that XECM has a 10 year contract with US sprint and that US sprint will never kick XECM out. However further renewal of such contracts or new ones are highly unlikely. If you read the telecommunication deregulation laws you will read from between the lines that it is now very easy for a big player like AT&T to get into the market XECM is trying to get into. I understand your notion of big companies setting up smaller companies and have them do all the dirty work for them. But in this case, sir, you are wrong. A big player like AT&T and even XECM's boss US Sprint will soon be flooding money (and lots of it) into that secotr DIRECTLY (i.e. no intermediate set up company like XECM). It is to their advantage with the latest deregulatory telecommunication laws to do it themselves (mainly for tax purposes and other cost effectiveness factors) rather than setting up a small player like XECM. Look at the latest strategic alliance that for example Nextell Communications has made with baby bells. Nextell will soon be going after the very same market XECM is, and believe me Nextell has a lot more money and marketing power than XECM. Another big player trying to do the same is WorldCom and that would try to manipulate and control that same market. The only gainer from the deregulation laws are the consumers. AT&T and MCI type companies will not gain much at first as they will be cutting their prices and expanding their services in order to maintain their market share and gain more, but in the long run they will gain greatly also (especially because of internet). Now if XECM could provide internet access to the end users then that is something else as I believe soon there will be a many consolidations in that area and XECM may be picked-up by one of the bigger players. But is XECM into providing intrnet access? From what I have seen they seem to be in a totally different market.
You may disagree, and I understand it completly. And believe me I do not intend to down play the role of XECM, just stating what I believe to be the facts as a casual observer of this thread. But I really do not understand why you keep bringing up this issue of short sellers of XECM into the discussion. XECM is not being shorted by anyone. Period. There is no single person in this universe that has shorted XECM ever (even when it was over $1/shr). In your reply comment to me you state:
> You could not understand the meaning "shares issued legally".
> Stock sold short increases the float. But those shares are artifical
> and, in my humble opinion, are illegal in most instances. I hope that
> clears up your sincere question.
With all do respect I still dont understand what is it that you are implying. When a stock is being shorted it means that the person shorting the stock is borrowing the shares from someone else. Those shares do not come from the sky. They must actually exist and some other share holder must have it. The short seller borrows the shares and sells it at a higher price hoping for the price to come down so he can buy back the shares and then replace them. So I have no idea what you mean by 'artificial shares' and 'illegal in most instances'?! Again the shares being shorted do not just come from the sky. They must actually exist and someone must hold them before they can be borrowed!
In my humble opinion, again, the only reason XECM is not going up or does not have much volume (like last Friday the volume was ZERO!) is not because of personal hostility by Candadians, Americans or Eurpoeans not buying the stock (or as you claim shorting it!). The company simply does not have any growth and does not appear to have absolutely no strong fundamentals. It is that simple.
But we can agree on one thing for sure: Time will tell. And please belive me this is my sincere hope that this company succeeds for those (and especially you) who seem to believe in it greatly.
Regards,
- Addi Jamshidi |
