Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Bill Wexler's Dog Pound -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David who wrote (1592)	6/28/1999 3:47:00 PM
From: ynot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

we'll see how it goes...eom ynot :)

To: David who wrote (1592)	6/28/1999 4:40:00 PM
From: Hockeyfan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

At the risk of legitimizing the complete crap posted on this thread.. The current evidence offered up by ynot against IDX is refuted as follows: No Default The company did not incur a payment default on its bank line of credit at 3/31/99. They were in technical violation of a bank covenant(s). There is a BIG difference. Whoever wrote the footnotes to the financial statements did a poor job if phrasing the situation. Companies violate technical provisions of debt covenants all the time and get waivers for the violation or amendments to the covenants. I would guess that the covenants are currently being rewritten as they did not contemplate IDX acquiring the biometric industry's second largest competitor. Default means non-payment of principal or interest on a due date. There is no due date on a revolving line of credit and since there is $1,353,000 available on the LOC, it is unlikely that they defaulted on the line of credit. Also, you can not get a waiver on a payment default, but you can get a waiver on a debt covenant violation. As for ynot's ratios -- Think about the ratio of pea brains that make incendiary posts on subjects they know nothing about and ask questions that they themselves don't know the answers to well-informed long-term holders that have to waste their time answering stupid questions by the former. I'll give you a hint. If ynot was a CPA or a CFA he would know that A/R to A/P doesn't mean anything and that the current ratio is current assets to current liabilities. Ynot is blowing smoke in the form of accounting/financial jargon and misformed financial relationships hoping that we won't take the time to dispute his crap. If he knew was he was talking about, he would know that IDX was not in default of its LOC, but in violation of its debt covenants -- see first paragraph.

To: David who wrote (1592)	6/29/1999 10:24:00 PM
From: Victor Lazlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

David- From the perspective of stock price value, with a pe ratio of 850, I am not sure this credit line default could be called a minor event. Recall the old saying: " If you owe your bank a million dollars, you are in trouble. If you owe your bank a billion dollars, your bank is in trouble." Maybe the bank simply does not want to cause panic. When a co reaches its aggregate borrowing capacity, bad things can begin to happen. I am employed by a firm with lots of govt contracts, and the govt pays slowly. You had better have a big $ partner if you want to sell a good % of your product to the govt. Victor