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 : Orbital Engine (OE) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John M Connolly who wrote (4526)	10/16/2000 8:46:43 PM
From: John M Connolly	Respond to of 4908

The following email was sent to Ross Kelly of Orbital. Dear Mr. Kelly The progress that Orbital has made during the last year is encouraging in as much as after some decades Orbital may become profitable. The last fiscal year was a disappointment with $50M in revenue and losses of $10M. However, I write to you to express my concern regarding the recent insider sales of our CEO and the Executive Director. As you are aware, insider transactions are usually considered an indicator of the prospects of a company. Likewise insider holdings can be relative to the prospects of a corporation. The meager holding of our management has always been a negative reflection on Orbital. Now when shareholders are holding hopes of success and a profit our two key executives are selling their options. As a corporate profit would do much to enhance shareholder value, do these sales reflect management's lack of confidence in their own ability to bring this corporation to a profit in a prudent manner? These sales question management's commitment to shareholder value and a profitable operation. These sales are most troubling in as much as they question management's ability to turn Orbital into a profitable going concern. If management does not feel that they have the ability to produce profits then a prudent board of directors would have to make some changes. I believe that this problem is of such importance that it should be addressed and the forthcoming AGM. I would appreciate a response. Yours sincerely John Connolly Owner 23,0000 ADR's

To: John M Connolly who wrote (4526)	10/17/2000 12:06:40 AM
From: dwight martin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4908

By the content and tone of your EMail, I assume you have ruled out that the options in question might have been about to expire?

To: John M Connolly who wrote (4526)	10/17/2000 7:50:48 AM
From: Dr Mike	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4908

Major controversy over this insider selling. Three possibilities come to mind: 1) Schlunke et al really do need the money for personal expenses, etc. 2) They believe that the current share price is as good as it will get in the near future. 3) They are completely tone deaf and clueless about how this will be viewed in the USA. Even if this is a totally acceptable and everyday occurrence in Australia, they should know and understand that the tail that wags the OE dog is the USA ADR owner. For them to exercise their options is smart, good, and commendable. For them to then turn around and sell them immediately tells the whole world that they believe that there is a better use of their funds than holding on to a few OE shares. They are acting like academic engineers, who feel that they have already achieved their goals by proving that their invention works. They are not acting like responsible corporate officers whose responsibility is to generate a profit for their employers (the shareholders). It is possible, and even likely that they are truly ignorant of the fact that insider selling is a published and closely followed item, and they may have the attitude that what they do with their money is not anyone else's business. In my opinion, that disqualifies them from running a publicly held company. Of the 3 possibilities, only #1 is acceptable.