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 : Vari-L (VARL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: akmike who wrote (2530)	10/7/2000 10:49:49 PM
From: Bosco	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2702

Hi ak - your concerns are valid. 1st, you seem to have dug much deeper than I did, so, from the factual level, I should stand corrected. I guess our differences may be this: I was actually less optimistic by assuming this episode was so bad that VARL was desperate enough to bring in a turn around specialist. Implicitly, it is either 1) it was pretty bad or 2) no one else wants to touch it! While this firm and KPMG are hire guns, VARL is really a small fish and they probably won't die w/o this job. So maybe it is a language difference to lead me to think you were concerned we shareholders would be fleece thrice [by your blank check comment.] So I guess I was trying to reassure myself that is not the case. The same applies to the BoD. I actually don't know who are left on the broad, but my guess is that the outside directors were appointed by the previous mgt, which is a negative, but they were probably instrumental in getting Mr Pappas and KPMG. Again, from my worst case scenario, I don't know who wants to tackle the hornet's nest. Should VARL have no BoD at all? Would it be a concern if Mr Pappas packed 7 of his people on broad? In truth, both of us are asking questions us outsiders are likely to be the last to know! I ve not read the KPMG report to SEC. Since you think it is not compatible with the the PR stated charges. Do you think the current mgt is trying to fleece the current shareholders. I mean, sooner or later, mgt will have to file the restatements with SEC. Is there a reason to misguide the shareholders to the downside at this point? Finally, I did not use my analogy [which is a real case] the way you extended it. I suppose my friend [wife] could ask about the hospital staff credentials and employment histories while the emergency room staff was administrating CPR to my friend. My point is that being cordial to my friend [wife] while they were concentrating on reviving my friend could backfire. That's all. Maybe I was being naive to suggest to people to send mgt their support if they feel mgt is trying to do something. To make amend, maybe you can send your concerns to mgt and see if you get any answer. I am sure we all will benefit best, Bosco