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.

Technology Stocks : LUMM - Lumenon Innovative Lightwave Technology Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: surelock who wrote (826)	9/12/1999 12:54:00 PM
From: jjs64	Respond to of 2484

Surelock; Great finds, great research. I always find it amusing how the bulls on an OTCBB Reverse Merger POS never seem to be able to find out this stuff on their own. Are they blind? Instead, they just try to attack the individuals who actually take the time to research an investment. And the question remains, with so much reputable VC money going to photonics start-ups why did LUMM hook up with Mikulic, Saviuk, and crew? If everything was so great Josef Strauss could have bought the whole damn company with his pocket change....but he didn't! If the technology, product and management were so good they certainly would have had better offers, and would have the industry contacts to get funded. I think it is important to understand exactly what MOLX paid for their stake in LUMM: 2.5 million in cash for 25% of the company = .27 cents per share They valued the whole company at $10 million! Thats it $10 million. All LUMM was valued at by MOLX was a measly $10 million, about 37x its current valuation. Buyer Beware!

To: surelock who wrote (826)	9/12/1999 4:02:00 PM
From: John Curtis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2484

Interesting set of information you present. It bespeaks a person who must have been burn in a past adventure. Still, you present no conclusion to your data. You start by showing the principle(s) involvement in various & sundry pursuits, and then end it with a 1997 e-mail solicitation from Manitex. Yet you don't follow this with what I would have expected to be a closing statement. Did Manitex fail? Did it, or its principle agents, get taken to court for nefarious activities? Did the various pursuits mentioned end in legal actions of some sort. WHAT? You need to develop your end argument, me thinks. I'd be interested in it should you conclude it. Indeed, PM me if you'd like as I'd be interested in seeing your closing statement. Regards! John~