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 : AremisSoft Corporation (AREM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (466)	6/30/2001 1:30:22 PM
From: Seeker of Truth	Respond to of 683

I think the positives outweigh the negatives on this stock. First about the short squeeze. If the borrowed stock is in the broker's street name which of course almost all are, then the broker can trade the old stock for the new stock and I fail to see any pressure on the shorts from this source. Some pressure will be exerted by the following two factors. 1. Naked shorts of course will have to cover, more exactly the broker will have to buy the stock which he "lent" for them without actually owning any. 2. Some shareholders have moved their shares from their margin accounts cash account. This immediately requires their broker to borrow the stock if he doesn't own any. Almost all of this pressure has already been exerted. As for the lawsuits, by the time they are settled the company will have completed its Bulgarian business, the profits will have grown a lot more and the question of how much loss anybody "suffered" will no longer exist. Indeed a counter suit by the company against Rocker and Greenberg sounds likely then. The principal negative is that the largest single holder, Infoquest, is in urgent need of funds for its own business. They plan to sell their remaining 5.3 million shares by the end of 2002. Of course they won't dump them in a month. But these 5.3 million shares do overhang the market. Infoquest has made a good profit on their early investment in AREM and must be sorry to be selling. So I don't see a short squeeze nor any big collapse. Let's understand that the company sells application software which is quite a competitive field. They benefit from low production costs in India. Being a small company without total control of any value chain, they shouldn't sell at 40 times earnings and they don't. I can't see some explosion to 30+ this year. But they have certainly executed well and therefor their shares could find a place in a cautious portfolio at current prices. JMHO. I am long a medium size amount with an extra income from covered calls.

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (466)	6/30/2001 3:43:29 PM
From: cgw1948	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 683

It really is just that simple, Kevin. And the longer the shorts stay in the denial phase, the more it will cost them in the capitulation phase. If you wait until after the proxy statement is filed, the cost of cover will have gone up. If you wait until the conference call to be held after the filing, the cost of cover will have gone up more. If you wait for the ultimate disposition of legal challenges to the recap and decertification plan, the cost of cover will have gone up even more. The script for this play has already been written. If you want to wait for the curtain to go up, so be it. Heck, if you think I'm off my (excuse the pun) Rocker, please dig a deeper grave for yourself, short some more!!!

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (466)	6/30/2001 6:01:17 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 683

(Dale: What if ZIXI did this?) Here is a total non sequitur answer - I miss the AREM I knew before all this moronic crap started flying from all sides - that includes Greenberg, Jacobs, the New York Times and my favorite SI playground twerps I put on permanent Ignore largely because this whole case is just so sad. Frankly, I don't believe either side will "win" their crusade. I don't believe AREM is a fraud unless the SEC opens an investigation into their books and I doubt the Jacobs maneuvers will force a short squeeze if it hasn't happened already. All I see is amateurish antics and shoddy "professional" behavior all around. ZIXI wouldn't do this because the charges against them can be easily substantiated and there were ample shares available to short. I don't compare the two, in the same way I reject comparing AREM to GENI, MSTR or LHSP. The circumstances are clearly different. The day to day trading here is now totally distorted by the huge short interest and the fear and rumor mongering that pervades the Yahoo board and hence the tape. It has nothing to do with accurate perceptions of AREM's perceived future value. I am interested in whether or not companies do business, make money and deserve a higher or lower share price. Everything else is a &*%($ing joke, long or short. And everyone who has provoked the pissing matches over AREM here falls in the same category, IMHO. Several people are pursuing other agendas that have nothing to do with AREM - this I know for a fact. That pretty well sums it up. I am sad to see very intelligent people on both sides of the argument on this thread have lowered themselves to the extent they have. Frankly, it's weird for me to see people I respect behaving so uncharacteristically over what is basically a fabricated melodrama. One can always hope the fire will burn out and otherwise decent people will come to their senses. The rest will stay on Ignore. Screw the twerps. I have no interest in people who get their rocks off sniffing human waste. You are a straight shooter with valid points, Kevin. Time will tell who is right. Maybe a long time given the amount of crap we have to wade through now. Regards.

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (466)	6/30/2001 8:44:41 PM
From: Richard James	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 683

Kevin, if your argument is valid, then every new idea would be doomed to failure. "If it's really just as simple as that, and any company can just arbitrarily force its entire short interest to cover for any reason or no reason at all other than to temporarily prop up their share price and hurt short sellers, why do we not see more companies doing this? " If valid under current rules and laws, as it appears to be, I have no doubt that the recapitalization plan will be approved and executed. The SEC and the NADAQ will undoubtedly follow its effects closely and, depending on what occurs, NEW rules or laws may be passed to prevent another company from doing the same thing. Nevertheless, AREM will be permitted to complete its plan. Any new rule or law would, however, have no effect on it as its ex-post facto application would clearly be unconstitutional.