Afag and everyone on this thread,
I did not take active actions to "search" this company, as I decided to sell it off, so I do not want to spend much time on that, I just bumped into a guy who told me he was previous employee of Osicom and he started to tell me some stories. Many of them I do not want to disclose here as I do not know how true they are (some are favorable to FIBR and some are not). But I believe Mr Witz is now healthy so I just want everyone to be aware of that. That was happened after I decide to sell my share so it did not affect my decision.
This can be a completely stupid mistake if FIBR has a lot of potential instead of a company selling stories. I have no way to prove one way or the other but my own gut feeling is telling me to sell the share. Most of them was due to the conference call which showed me that Craig could be right. Again, I respect that there are many investors who do not see in the same way as I did, which as long as they are the investors, they have all the right to do whatever they want.
I do not think we should use the word "dumped" to describe Mr Witz's resignation unless we have proof that he did not resign on his own accord.
But neither do I agree that it is an immaterial item, as we have no way to completely understand the company in a big deal. Since even Mr. David Pawak has to rely heavily on what Par said, how can we afford to verify each piece of the company ? How do we know that Gigamux will work as it claimed? NASA is testing it, can they test it on a different product specification? Would they come to us and tell us : guys, we only test it as a fiber connector and NOT such short haul DWDS (example only, not a fact).
We normally can only judge a company management on repeated "minor" items, see if they are care about the minority shareholders, see if they are open to us and they want to account for some questionable area to make us feel comfortable(such as where are those increased stock, we should not rely on someone here telling us that might be used to buy companies, and then conclude it was a pretty good deal).
If a company is not ready to be open to its shareholders, either they do not know how to be open or they do not intend to be open, they should keep the company private. As long as they are a public company, we all have right to comment on its operation. At least I myself is in a similar industry, I can tell you when a customer really agreed to enter a kind of partnership with a company, they will allow you to disclose its name (if this is a favorable move), as no customer want a supplier in a shaky position unless they are not that serious.
Or as in the "NMS" listing, do we have right to ask the management to tell us what happened? It seems to me that some guys here are claiming that "old lie" (or more precisely, a mistake in a speech which was not happened later one) is not a lie, "small lie" is not a lie, and we should not care about it. And we must have a bad intention if we raise them here. Why?
CH |
