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 : Knight/Trimark Group, Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: S. M. SAIFEE who wrote (3434)	8/11/1999 8:37:00 PM
From: S. M. SAIFEE	Respond to of 10027

May be volatility and big drop in the stock price was anticipation of this 10Q and negative surprise. Any body on this thread can see any adverse forward looking statement?

To: S. M. SAIFEE who wrote (3434)	8/11/1999 9:29:00 PM
From: Sir Francis Drake	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10027

S.M. Saifee - at the time management cancelled the program - July 21, NITE was not in the 60's, it was at 52. The next day it plunged by 5 points. I wish I knew at the time of the cancellation. I can tell you, it would have certainly affected my "line in the sand" of 48 1/2. I certainly would not have drawn that line - I did it based on the totality of the knowledge I had at the time - knowledge that was woefully inadequate. Kudos to those (probably the likes of FBCO) who knew - no excuse, my bad. I can tell you, knowing that the day before, management CANCELLED a buyback program would have dramatically affected my trading - not only would I have not gone long at 48 1/2, I'd have sold my sister's crutches and shorted the bejesus out of this issue - management just gave a green light; no wonder FBCO had such confidence shorting. In any case, I am not arguing that NITE couldn't have used the money better than a buyback - that is not my beef, as I explained carefully in my post. My problem is, that they made a BAD DECISION about the whole issue, which makes me doubt the management skills. Why did they establish a buyback program in the first place??? HYPE? Didn't they know, being a young company, that they may need the capital for better things? Sorry, but at this point I am deeply skeptical about these people. I put nothing past these guys. I think it either shows tremendously bad judgement, or it was designed as PURE HYPE so that they could boost the price before they unloaded. We can all draw our own conclusions - that is my take (I'm sure many disagree). Sorry, but I don't trust these guys at this point. And once you do have a buyback program, to cancel it - is like throwing the sharholders to the wolves. Like I said before I even found out about this (I posted some days ago about defending $30) - it is better NOT TO EVEN HAVE such a program in the first place than to first have it, and then either not use it to defend critical levels ($30) - or cancel it (this is so appalling, that it didn't even occur to me as a possibility). So again, I ask - why did they establish it in the first place? I suspect their motives. And then to pull a trick like this with this timing - unforgivable. Once you took the step of having that program, you should stick to it - the bed you made. It is terrible to first make a picture like they did (a picture on which I COUNTED, in my investing/trading decisions) - and then pull the rug from underneath. I'd much rather they never establish the program in the first place - as an investor/trader, I'd at least base my TA and FA work on real information. Bottom line: either they goofed establishing the program or they had venal motives - not good either way. And then this sneak cancellation - this is really a blow below the belt. Again, bad, bad decision making. Once they took step A, they should have stuck with it, instead of hanging the shareholder out to dry. Despicable. I think frankly, that whatever uses they had for the capital, they could have gotten the funds through less damaging ways. This way, they kicked the shareholders in the gut. Sorry, but these are not people I want as custodians of my investment dollars. The companies I invest in, don't pull stunts like this. Obviously, views will differ. But I wanted to make clear, that to me it was not a question of whether they could have found better ways to use the money. I'm sure they could. It is about management judgement, and where their priorities lie. If someone tells me that they're going to give you a ride to the hospital, and then they don't turn up, because they can use the gas in a better way - cool, I'm sure there are more profitable uses for the gas. But in that case don't promise in the first place - I'd have made alternative arrangements - this way you leave me stranded under the worst circumstances. I'm sure they've used the gas well - but I'll never trust them again. And I can't be a long term shareholder in a company whose management I distrust. Morgan