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: RCDTD who wrote (990)	10/5/1999 1:35:00 AM
From: Fred McCutcheon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2484

<<Fred, you and the rest of the shorts are absolutely right!!>> Shorts and longs are both integral parts of the market system. You however use "short" as a pejorative term. A "short" who puts up his money to back his opinion is an asset to the market for a security. He provides shares to the market at a price now, thereby guaranteeing purchasing power in the shares in the future. He of course hopes that when he buys in it will be at a lower price than his sale. Your wrath should properly be directed at both shorts and longs who spread misinformation about a security for their own benefit. Bulletin Boards are populated with both kinds of touts. Their chaff is harder to see through if there is little if any actual information base, as in LUMM. As I pointed out in an earlier post, shorting is difficult until stock is in margin accounts. This only happens when the stock is marginable. Stock becomes marginable when LUMM arrives on NASDAQ. It arrives on NASDAQ when it comes out of its shell and files disclosure documents with the SEC. Until then, I suspect that the shorts can sell very few shares to the market because they can't borrow it from brokers. The only source of shares in any quantity is the buyers of the private placements. We have no idea of what resale restrictions, if any, were applied to these buyers who probably, including options, have 8 to 10 million shares (the actual figures, oddly enough, are not available). Given the volume figures, even cut in half for the OTCBB double counting of trades, it seems unlikely that the stated (in a newspaper article) "public" share holding of 6 million shares could be the only source of volume. <<These two brilliant evil scientist Dr. Andrews and Dr. Najafi left their successful career to specifically screw mankind. With the aid of MOLEX, a CISCO photonics engineer and a University of Arizona professor. Since all of these partners were already successful they all decided to throw it all away because deep down, everyone has bad intentions.>> Dr. Andrews, Dr. Najafi, MOLEX, a CISCO photonics engineer and a University of Arizona professor are the very positive factors for LUMM. I have never suggested that any of them had bad intentions or were running a scam. I hope they are right in all of their wildest dreams for this technology. As a Canadian I think it would be a wonderful success story for Canada and Montreal to have a world beater technology come from there. However, until there is formal disclosure of the company's affairs, I will be neither long nor short, just continuing my small crusade for disclosure. I really want to see disclosure because I would love to play in this exciting technology. A friend told me about this when it was $1.75. He has cashed out a lot of money since then. Being somewhat old fashioned, I decided to wait until I at least knew the number of shares outstanding. I have missed a great ride, but I hope there will still be opportunity when LUMM decides to file with the SEC. Fred McCutcheon