>>Yes, I didn't feel like wasting my time trying to explain to knuckleheads that they were going to lose 50-75% of their money on this stock.<<
Not according to what you said at the time. The source of your opinion was the tape and that was all. Not that it matters, I just wanted to make the point you haven't always just offered ideas opposite those of longs, which is fair for anyone to do, you have come on this board and just yelled scam. It's this that has set you apart and as a target for Osicoms legal department.
You post several questions wanting details. I have no details, I am not accusing you or anyone of anything. I am simply laying out a plausible scenario, and a reason for a company to go on the defensive against even internet posters. Sorry Craig I won't slander you or Bill Alpert or Barrons. MarketMover said that he has had conversations with Bill Alpert and that Bill mentioned something about future articles. You can draw your own conclusions from that as well as I. Who knows if what he said was even true.
>>Obviously senior management of publicly traded companies and magazine reporters have priviliged information at times and could theoretically profit illegaly from it. That's nothing new. Care to clarify why this is important?<<
It is important that senior managers and reporters do not profit illegally. I'm not sure why that needs to be clarified, perhaps the SEC has a clue why they have written insider trading regulations, ask them.
>>Do you think that it is a coincidence that this company is supposedly under attack? Do you think that people just randomly targeted poor little innocent Osicom who was just trying to build an honest business? Osicom has done absolutely nothing wrong and several negative articles by reputable publications were written plus millions of shares were shorted as all part of some grand scheme? You can't really believe that. Osicom management can't even honestly believe that.<<
Yes I believe it is possible. If you look at the numbers of shares short at that time and the percentage drop, a lot of money was made on the Monday after that article. My supposition is circumstantial. It is simply finding a company with this convertible shares situation and shorting them and then having a big negative article published. Tell me why this isn't plausible. You offered up another way to view it. Perhaps those financing with convertible shares would short the company in order to profit on the downside, then when the shares convert profit on the upside. Anything is possible. There just seems to me to be more at work here than this front page story was simply a way to fill up the front page.
>>I had no knowledge that SmartMoney was going to mention anything about FIBR in the article.<<
I have yet to read the article, so I really can't comment in detail. I find it odd that you didn't know this however. How did it turn out you didn't know this? This honestly sounds quite strange.
Scott |
