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 : Le coin des francophones -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MICHEL GUIBERT who wrote (11093)	1/17/2000 5:56:00 PM
From: AriKirA	Respond to of 77509

Michel, je crois que le post qui suit resume tres bien ce qui s'est passe ... To: jim heger (1419 ) From: the Chief Friday, Jan 14 2000 8:52AM ET Reply # of 1428 Well I had a nice long talk with Stephen Litwin last night. I was very surprised how quickly the company was willing to accept 100% of the responsibility for this fiasco. Normally companies want to blame somebody else. After listening to Stephen it quickly became apparent that there was a number of problems. They initially stemmed from the "questions" the SEC posed on Dec 20th. First the questions were not that difficult and the information was found in 4 working days. The unfortunate situation was that the 4 working days for the lawyers worked out to the end of December. When they submitted the data they were informed that the SEC backlog would not allow the review in time to maintain the OTC BB standing, nor get them to NMS! So what were the difficulties; 1)Lawyers did not make LUMM aware of the SEC backlog and ensure a timely submission 2) After the submission was made a "further information sheet was generated by the SEC at the worst time of a calender year.....Xmas/NY 3) The lawyers were on Xmas/NY vacation and so was LUMM 4) The data turnaround was achieved in 4 working days 5) The response was received by the SEC but because of the backlog ( an SEC problem) the approval process would take LUMM beyond the cutoff date. Conclusion I appreciate Lumm's position that it was "there fault" but after further analysis of the data I think they are being "too responsible" (nice to see)! The failure was likely started by lawyers not being aware of the SEC backlog, then it was proliferated by the SEC in that, they asked for more data when they knew any submitted data would likely not be processed in time. And, finally LUMM managment for not ensuring that the submission was not submitted "well ahead of time, SEC backlog or not". So who is at failure? All Lumm,SEC, Lawyers. Starting with a submission that would have been "ontime" but because of the backlog became a "late submission". So we suffer the pinks for 30 days......but I will be watching closely the developments leading up to day 30! the Chief

To: MICHEL GUIBERT who wrote (11093)	1/18/2000 6:13:00 AM
From: faro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77509

Michel, si je peux me permettre une r‚ponse sur LUMM! Ari a post‚ un message trŠs … propos sur LUMM qui ne fait cependant aucune lumiŠre sur ce qui risque d'arriver pour LUMM dans les prochaines semaines. Techniquement, le delisting n'est pas si grave, un cie ne respecte pas les d‚lais et est d‚list‚e pour quelques semaines ou quelques mois car ‡a peut aller jusqu'… plus de 90 jours dans certains cas. Pourtant dans les faits, le delisting est grave. Car il donne le message que le management n'a pas bien fait sa job -- ce qui est vrai -- Et on entend partout que si le management ne peut mˆme pas fournir qqs documents … la SEC pour maintenir son listing soit qu'il est incomp‚tent ou inconscient ou les deux. Et c'est un peu vrai! Quand ces choses arrivent, quelqu'un quelque part n'a pas fait sa job et tout le monde est dans la merde. Le Pink n'est pas une belle couleur de papier pour les transactions. Et l'historique du Pink n'est pas brillant. Alors tous ces facteurs combin‚s font que les investisseurs se rar‚fient, car c'est plus difficile de transiger - tu peux voir des spreads de plusieurs dollars - car les MM's contr“lent tout et le bid and ask n'apparaŒt sauf comme je l'ai dit plus t“t, pour confondre l'investisseur. J'aurais tendance … dire que plus ‡a dure longtemps, pire ‡a sera. Si ‡a durait 90 jours par exemple, l'action de LUMM pourrait descendre en bas de 1 dollar avec beaucoup de manipulation. Cependant, si ‡a dure quelques jours ou semaines, l'impact sera minimis‚. Mais l'action mangera un coup c'est s–r. Regarde les autres cies qui sont pass‚es au rose. En g‚n‚ral, c'est pas brillant. L'inqui‚tude est justifi‚ … cause des r‚actions ‚motives des investisseurs et aussi de ceux qui voudront faire chuter le prix pour toutes sortes de raisons. Faro