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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Conolog Cp -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: StockDung who wrote (52)	3/17/2000 6:50:00 PM
From: Sir Auric Goldfinger	Respond to of 428

Well look here at the fortuitous sales of 895,000+ shares by Warren Schreiber. That name rings a bong. Where do we know him from? "WSA SCHREIBER WARREN,10% BEN. OWNER,SELLS 895,000 FROM 02/01/00-02/1 Mar 16 2000 2:49 ORM 4 EC - FROM 02/01/00-02/14/00, SCHREIBER WARREN, A BENEFICIAL OWNER OF MORE THAN 10% OF SECURITY CLASS OF CONOLOG CORP (TICKER:CNLG) SOLD 895,000 SHARES AT $1.38 - $6.38, BRINGING HOLDINGS TO 300,000 SHARES. The Washington Service reports only purchases and sales (both open market and private) of common stock. Additional insider trading information is available to qualified professional investors through our web site (www.washserv.com).

To: StockDung who wrote (52)	3/17/2000 8:52:00 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 428

Truthseeker, I don't wish to make a major production out of this, nor do I have the time to get deeply into it. However, after reading your just published report on Conolog, which I found very interesting, would not the best means of delivering "the truth" be to simply deliver "the truth" and let it rest on its own merits? Also, is "the truth" important? I presume you'd answer yes to both of the above. So why then did you make "the truth" suspect? Why would you possibly compromise and make suspect "the truth,"--if it truly is "the truth"--by immediately pasting your report on Conolog onto the most notorious of short-seller threads: Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, on Silicon Investor? On Friday, March 17, 2000, at 5:53 p.m. (eastern time), you published your report on the Conolog thread: [NOTE 5:53 p.m.] Message 13230118 Instantly thereafter, on Friday, March 17, 2000, at 5:56 PM (eastern time)--[NOTE: 5:56 p.m.]--you immediately alerted the shortsellers' prime thread: Message 13230128 Since when did "the truth" become part and parcel to shorting? I'd seem to me, in a truthful situation, the shorters should have the same fair discovery as the longs who are gonna be hurt by your report? Mr. TruthSeeker, how do you reconcile fair discovery within your version of truth? Or have you spoonfed your allies in the matter? Frankly, I find any quest for "the truth" an admirable endeavor. However, your means of delivery is both wrongful and repuslive. It makes your report on Conolog as suspect and as questionable as the allegations you contain within your report. I guess the below article describes why you cozied to the shorties immediately after posting your report on Conolog. Message 13230215 It would appear, based on your methodology of delivering the Conolog report, that the article referenced above is 100 percent correct, at least relative to the allegation that you're in in bed with the shorters. Thus, is described a motive behind your reporting. "The truth" be known, your work is on the side of the shortsellers, not the "mom and pop" investors. Man, oh man, oh man, why can't we "mom and pop" types have a fair up and a fair down? Your self-imposed and questionable version of "the truth" stains the very ideal of a fair up and a fair down within the investing community. In my view, your view of truth should be banished from any reasonable and rational consideration. I hope you understand what I'm writing about and I wish you both the luck and hope necessary that some day you'll discover what the real truth is all about. PartyTime PS: Perhaps in the future you should deliver the report to the company, get their response and print both documents. Then the true investors can discover "the truth."

To: StockDung who wrote (52)	3/18/2000 12:24:00 AM
From: Mike E.	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 428

TheTruthseeker Report CON-o-log (CNLG, CNLGW) A warning to our Mom and Pop Investors Uh huh. Something doesn't add up here. How about a disclosure from TheTruthseeker as to how many shares you and/or your buddies shorted before posting "The Truth" after close of market on a Friday evening? I'm not making any statement as to the validity of your research because I've just seen it for the first time. All I want to know is, in the same public forum, "The Truth": Are you neutral or do you hold a position, either short or long, in CNLG? TIA, mike

To: StockDung who wrote (52)	3/18/2000 1:18:00 PM
From: Mike E.	Respond to of 428

As an example of how facts are twisted, here is what "The Truthseeker" chose to highlight out of the recent financial report from Conolog: They announced earnings of 328k, but 2/3 of that was from taking credit for their prior losses under NJ state tax laws, actual earnings from the business would be 119k, or .02 per share, not the .06 reported, and LESS than the .04 that they pre announced a few days ago! Fair enough. Here is what I see as more important from the latest financial report: QUARTER ENDED JANUARY 31, 2000 Revenues for the quarter ended January 31, 2000 totaled $1,556,937 representing an increase of 264% or $967,609 from $589,328 reported for the same quarter a year ago. Revenues increased largely due to the rapid growth of Atlas Design, our human resource company, as well as releases for the Company's INIVEN products. Hmmm, company shows huge % growth in revenues due to one of their new business ventures. Excellent. Gross margin for the quarter totaled $361,651 representing 23% of revenues as compared to $(4,956) or (1%) of revenues for the quarter ended January 31, 1999. The increase in gross margin is mostly due to the lower overhead costs associated with the human resource business as well as reduced labor costs of producing the INIVEN product line. So, let me get this straight, not only did they show a huge % increase in revenue but they also showed a decrease in cost for the same unit resulting in an increase in gross profits from negative to $361k - Excellent! Selling, general and administrative expenses decreased from $503,742 to $242,675 for the quarter, representing a decrease of $261,067 as compared to 1999. This decrease is attributable to lower consulting expenses incurred during the quarter as compared to 1999. Ooops, more good news. Continuing to cut costs be reducing overhead. Looks like that was money well spent in 1999 as it seems to be paying off now. See above for proof of that. - Excellent! Additional revenues of $210,887 were received for the sale of New Jersey State losses for fiscal years ended July 31, 1994 through July 31, 1998. As a result of the foregoing, the Company reported net income of $328,743, or $.06 per share for the quarter compared to net loss of $510,338 or $0.12 per share. Hmmm, again I see good news. What a spectacular quarter CNLG had and looks to be the beginning of quite a turn around story. It's okay to short - it's part of the free market system - just admit it, eh? mike

To: StockDung who wrote (52)	3/18/2000 2:36:00 PM
From: Mike E.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 428

More bad news, Truthseeker: Today's financials (See Exhibit 5) are very interesting. Here is a company with revenues of 1.5 million for the Q, but inventories of 3.2 million. Inventory Analysis This company has more than one year's of sales in inventory. As of July 1999, the company's inventory was $3.19 million. Since the cost of goods sold was $2.03 million for the year, the company had 574 days of inventory on hand (another way to look at this is to say that the company turned over its inventory 0.6 times per year). In terms of inventory turnover, this is a significant improvement over July 1998, when the company's inventory was $3.21 million, equivalent to 2,476 days in inventory. At the end of July 1999, the order backlog at Conolog totalled $1.60 million, versus $1.40 million in July 1998. This represents an increase of 14.3%. Source: profiles.wisi.com Notice that while inventories were indeed high, there was a significant improvement over the previous period. Company appears to be "turning it around" - Excellent! mike