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 (472)	7/1/2001 8:14:38 PM
From: Ben Wa	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 683

As to why the AREM strategy has not been done by other firms in a similar position, maybe AREM is the first to think of it. Also, many firms that have been heavily shorted have had fraudelent aspects and/or serious fundamental problems that created rational fundamental reasons for the short interest. However, if the eps estimates for AREM are even close to reality, then AREM would fit neither of the two categories mentioned. If you want to know why any company would not do what AREM is doing to get rid of short sellers, it might be because most short interests do not equal more than 100% of the float of a company, with some groups of shorts sellers allegedly acting in concert, working with the media, and trying to interfere with the actual day to day business of the company. An internet company that was trading at 55 times estimates 2000 revenues in March of 2000 that was heavily shorted could have done the same thing and called for an exchange of shares. The problem is that since the fundamentals of that company were falling into a black hole, anyone long the stock would have seen through it and bailed on the first uptick. The demise of the .bomb stocks would not have been halted by the AREM methodology. But AREM is not trading at 50 times this year's revenues or 400 times earnings. I think you are comparing apples and.............pot stickers.

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (472)	7/7/2001 1:30:32 PM
From: Richard James	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 683

< Do you agree or disagree with this statement? If the SEC approves this recapitalization as it has been presented to us, with no apparent purpose other than to force a covering of the short interest, then that would be tantamount to SEC declaring "open season" on all short positions in all stocks in all exchanges under its jurisdiction. If not, why not, and if so, do you believe this to be desirable?> I disagree with your statement, which is based on the false premises that the recapitalization has been presented with no apparent purpose other than to force a covering of the short interest. Furthermore, I do not believe that the SEC's action in a single unique circumstance is a reliable indicator of how it will treat all short positions in all stocks trading on all exchanges. Here we have a stock that has been subjected to abusive short tactics, the NSCC has documented a failure to deliver more than a million shares, and the exchange involved, the NASDAQ, is refusing to enforce UPC 11830 while its owners, the brokers, are profiting from those very abuses.