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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Nuvo Research Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Morag who wrote (10548)	8/13/2002 10:20:23 PM
From: axial	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14101

Hi, Morag - "I guess what the current share price and volume is telling us is show me." Agreed. Well said. As to "Where are the buyers?" - well, DMX has sold more than 4 million shares during the greatest Bear Market in recent history. As TMM9 pointed out on Stockhouse - "A while back I was very unhappy with the BOD and management. While I am still unhappy with the uninspired BOD I recall comparing the BOD and management of DMX to VAS. The latter IMO being exemplary. Well VAS is trading below DMX now. Indeed VAS did a private placement in spring at the $4.80 level and the shares are currently $2.60. Presently I am very much on the pro REK camp" Where are the American buyers? The institutional buyers? They are very good at hiding their buys - how many people even guessed at the extent of the Canada Pension Plan's holdings? (Thanks, for that, Joe). And finally (where are the buyers?) - I think Wolf's post on the subject, which I have quoted for months, is the essence of the matter. For the institutions, DMX at $5 or $6 - with approval - is a better bet than DMX at $3 - without approval. Exactly, Wolf. "On the other matter, REK's holdings I know there has been a lot of debate about the transfer of her shares. If her shares were actually sold on the market it would have been even more disruptive than AW." My, oh my, it's nice to hear someone say that! You are the first poster (that I can recall) who has ever confirmed the fact that sale of RK's shares would have meant the sale of more than 50,000 shares a day, for more than a month of trading days. The shares were transferred - that's obvious. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that they have been sold. There are a lot of unknowns in DMX. Many posted thoughts, and opinions are treated as "facts" - when they are not facts. Anger and frustration are no substitutes for thinking clearly. Many conclusions about Acqua are suppositions: not facts. I have yet to see the proof that Acqua was the wrong decision. Personally, I don't like it any better than others, when the price gets scuppered: but the reality is, the price is holding up well, in a BAD market. Good, level-headed post, Morag. Well thought-out. Thank you. Jim

To: Morag who wrote (10548)	8/14/2002 11:25:56 AM
From: twentyfirstcenturyfox	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14101

Hi Morag, thanks very much for your thoughtful and calm post. Unlike Jim, who seems to see anger and frustration under every bush. Jim, a most incorrect reading of my post, a non-perceptive and impolite post from you. Quite unlike you. back on topic: Re: a private placement, I think a pp now would be unwise too, as it demands an incredible amount of management's energies - which can be best expended elsewhere, e.g. pushing France and Germany for recognition. Also, Rebecca has avoided a Canadian placement so far, and I think it she went there today, that Bloor Street would show its reputation for having a mean streak a mile wide. Re; The Acqua deal; I have considered it quite an achievement on her part, from day one. I believe that DMX was the first Canadian pharma that Acqua 'did'. My point of view is that it is very difficult to see that anyone is enthusiastic about the stock, when all of the trading volume relates to the Acqua financing/placement. Oberweis, Lodestar, and many, many other small cap stock investor funds buy stocks the old fashioned way - BEFORE the news comes out. I am bemused at how this thread continues to ignore this pointer from the market. I am just looking for a balanced informative discussion of why none of these small cap funds, like nobody, are buyers of DMX. That's all. The exception being Joe's find about the Canadian Govt Fund holdings - that is a gem - cheered me up no end, thanks Joe! HC, yes, they are under-funded, but they mislead her and let us down, no doubt of that. I used to follow the SH thread, but gave up in disgust with all of the vitriolic posts about Rebecca's stock dealings. However, I never managed to ascertain what price her deal was done at, regardless of whether it was a trust, a tax driven or whatever kind of transaction. That is not what interests me. I am simply asking two questions, for the benefit of mywifeisgonnakillme. I think she is entitled to ask me and I feel embarrassed at having to go back and tell her that I don't know and that nobody else knows (or is prepared to share, if they do) on this thread, or, in Jim's case, the reaction is one of paranoia. When the Acqua financing was announced, I attempted to investigate if there was a Prospectus filed with OSC. I was unsuccessful. The 2000 and 2001 Annual Reports, following conventional levels of disclosure, don't show names of major shareholders, nor of option grantees. So, I ask again, does anybody know, how many shares and options does Rebecca have, in DMX? I know that Rebecca's answer would be "it's none of your business", but, here's trying with you guys. Hopefully, Fox.