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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 50% Gains Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (13600)	12/26/1999 9:34:00 AM
From: Complexio Oppositorum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 118717

Dale, I read a few posts back that you co-manage a fund based in Ireland. Do you have any thoughts on IONA (one of Jenna's picks)?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (13600)	12/26/1999 8:28:00 PM
From: HeyRainier	Respond to of 118717

[ Authoriszor: AUOR ] Hi Dale, The company used to be called Toucan Gold back in 1996. From its filings: "The Company intends to undertake a program of mineral exploration to target and explore selected areas of its Brazilian mining claims to determine which areas are most likely to contain economic gold mineralization. A mapping program based upon satellite imagery will precede field investigation, which will include detailed geologic mapping, geochemical sampling and drilling in accordance with standard exploration practice..." The company is a cash-burning machine with no history of ever creating a meaningful stream of revenues despite its 3 year operating history. They've burned cash down from $2 million in 1997 to about $800,000 (a majority of which was recently raised from the sale of investments to keep them afloat, not from operations), with cash burn from operations taking up about $200,000 if you exclude the one-time nature of the gain from investments. Filings are consistently late. After experiencing little success in its mining operations, the company decided to change its stripes in order to display a more appealing business model, and hopefully, attract a Wall Street crowd that would eat anything internet-related. Notice how with the wave of a magic wand, they transformed themselves from an unsuccessful mining company into an internet company focusing on security, ASPs, and B2B e-procurement, the very core businesses that make up the white-hot sectors of Wall Street. That's great. However, I've read of these phenomena in short-selling books about how companies like to change stripes to catch the current rage on the Street. From their filings: "As reported in a Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 1999 and in order to begin its operations as an Internet-based company, the Company, which was previously conducting operations as a mineral development company, on July 22, 1999 acquired Authoriszor Ltd., United Kingdom Internet-based company. Following this acquisition, the name of the Company was changed to Authoriszor Inc., and the trading symbol for the Company's common stock on the OTC Bulletin Board was changed to " AUOR." Since the acquisition of Authoriszor Ltd., the Company has focused its efforts on setting up its development center, preparing for the opening of its first sales office and recruiting employees and management..." Poor operating history, little management credibility, and OTC:BB status give me much to doubt. Home runs don't come easily unless institutions sustainably back the stock. Being part of one, I can tell you that portfolio managers would be hard-pressed to justify to clients the inclusion of AUOR into their portfolios. ("..but, it's in B2B, security, and ASPs!"..."Any operating history?"..."Well, not really...at least nothing successful") Try justifying that. The chart is broken and the trend is down. Tom Petty would have used this chart in his video "Free Falling" had he been a big fan of stocks at the time. <g> However, if you simply must succumb to the destructive trading tendencies of humans, I wouldn't suggest anything more than 33% of your original intended position--and at the very least, wait until that downtrend is broken. My conclusion is that there's too much sizzle and too little steak. While message board euphoria can drive this thing to much higher levels, I myself would be comfortable in walking away from this opportunity because of the too many questions the company's history has raised. On the surface, the transition of the company sounds great, but right now there is too much talk and too few results. Not exactly the cornerstone of prudent investing. Good luck. Rainier

To: Dale Baker who wrote (13600)	12/26/1999 9:05:00 PM
From: HeyRainier	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 118717

Dale, I wish to correct the following in my previous message: "...with cash burn from operations taking up about $200,000 if you exclude the one-time nature of the gain from investments." That adjustment should be reversed. The cash burn is actually ($400,000). Cash flow from operations already excludes the one-time nature of the gains from the sale of investments by subtracting the gains from net income. I unnecessarily "double-removed" this factor. Rainier