Nancy
FWIW:
For old insider selling, have a look under "insider" on the yahoo quotes.
I don't really think that it is necessary to explain that the managment salaries of fonx were and are ridiculous high, in times when they let old longs bleed by dilution and price decline, fired staff and didn't and still don't pay them in time.
Just look back at old discussions here on SI....
As for delisting, if you think the market might ignore this, you could be right if the price was at 1/8, but ....
Randy, you write: >>Not much to lose but a great deal to gain if they can pull this off.<<
I don't know if I get you, but if you buy now at an average of lets say $0.75 and the stock tanks again to $0.25, would you see this as minor because its just a $0.50 loss or wouldn't you say that this is a unhealthy loss of 66%?
;-)
------------------------
FYI:you might be interested in an old conspiracy theory, that I posted on the yahoo board some time ago around message #10.000.
---------
" Written by an investor friend. Thought it might be of interest
>>Greetings Roger,
Earlier you had mentioned you'd be interested in my
critique of your
new upcoming deal which turned out to be the sale of
Articulate. Per
our phone call, I agreed that this was a must do deal to
get out of
what had become an understaffed and underfinanced deal
after MRC was
bought out by Medquist and this resulted in the
terminatin of the
marketing arm for Articulate. And I continue to agree
with this as a
way to get out of a short term cash draining deal and as
a way to get
some quick non dilutive financing for fonix. However, I
didn't think
this would help share price and time ha shown that it
hasn't as the
price has gone from .75 to .375. Face it, only revenue
producing deals
will ever help the share price.
But let me add to this 'critique' some general thoughts
on fonix as
revealed to me through my investment experience with
fonix corporation.
From a strategic point of view, I believe that fonix made
a correct
decision some time ago to pursue the embedded solutions
instead of
further shrink wrap software. Time has shown that the
software path is
long, difficult, hard to make money off of, and full of
fierce
competitors. Unfortunately, somewhere along the way fonix
decided
diversify their strategy to get quickly into the product
business by
buying Acuvoice and Articulate. Both of these were
expensive and
poorly researched and poorly thought out. They were
financed by death
spiral convertibles which fonix management has played
'dumb' about
saying they didn't know this could happen in the finance
world (
implausible defense ) and contributed massive dilution to
a losing
proposition. At least Articulate has been let go, but
Acuvoice remains
a poor producer. At the time of this purchase, Festival
TTS was
available nearly free and was as good as Acuvoice. Too
bad we went in
this direction.
Given this, fonix continued to work in the embedded
solution arena with
no visible success. This is not to say that Siemens
TriCore or
IntelStrongARM etc won't pan out, but they haven't to
date.
So the strategy was okay, though unfocused with the
acquisitions. So,
what about the tactics? And the tactics have resulted in
failure at
every turn.
So the question must be, why has there been failure at
every corner?
Usually when organizations fail, leadership is at fault.
In the case
of fonix this includes Mr. Studdert, Mr. Murdock and Mr.
Dudley. Given
that these three gentlemen had no technological
background, the
question must come up have the interface engineers,
Shephard and
Moncure, misled fonix management as to what was possible
and in what
time frame? I certainly don't have the answer for this.
Also the
question comes up, did fonix engineers really have
adequate leadership
as to what was required of them and were time phase lines
or other
management tools ever utilized. Again I don't have the
capability to
answer this except to note that history seems to answer
that there were
problems with this ( which goes to support the scuttlebut
that this has
been a problem all along ).
All of the above is predicated on the "gimmee" that fonix
does indeed
have technology. Another answer for the failure would be
that fonix
may not have the technology in which case this is more a
problem of
misrepresentation or deceipt. I can only hope that my
"gimmee" that
fonix does have technology is correct ( based upon
interviews with Ron
Cole et al. )
Another explanation of the failure of fonix is one Instant Stock
suggested on a chat Alerts.
line ( SItechstocks) about two years ago and further Apply for IPOs.
pursued by that Click here!
fonix curmudgeon JHString aka
GrantFroeseofMedicineHat. This story goes Related Links
that at some point in 1997 it became apparent to top
fonix management Quote & News
that indeed, whatever they had, it wasn't going to Profile
work, it wouldn't Insider
get to market in a timely manner, a market growing
with worthy
competitors on a daily basis. Consequently, they
struck a deal with
the devil, in this case the devil was stationed in
Switzerland/Germany
and included the release of confidential information
which would allow
European investors to 1. divest themselves of fonix
shares in a timely
manner at high prices and 2. allow these same European
investors to
short fonix shares. Other aspects of the deal can be
summarized that
fonix management would continue to pursue their
"failed" busness plan
to the hilt till the point that fonix share became
worthless, till
fonix went into chapter 11 or chapter 7, allowing the
Europeans to
cover their short position at the lowest possible
position.
Although JHString has recently been in Switzerland
pursuing this line
of thinking, the major support for this story is that
fonix managemnt
errors in decision are so major and so recurrent and
so persisitent,
that the common and prudent man would have to conclude
that fonix
managament has been making these errors on purpose;
that is that no
managment team could possibly be this inept unless
they were being paid
to be this inept. Again, I have no opinion or
information about this
either, except to say that is sounds plausible.
In summary, I know it has been a difficult time for
fonix. I hope you
all the best, unfortunately I have remained an
investor in fonix. I
have mentioned to you in the past that fonix has set
up a "war"
mentality with their own investors. This is outrageous
as the
investors are really very interested in their
investment. I'm sure you
think if these are our friends, who are our enemies. I
think in this
case that old lne from Pogo is most apt for fonix
leadership, "We have
met the enemy, and they are us."
------------- |
