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 : JMAR Technologies(JMAR) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: henry jakala who wrote (4378)	12/6/1997 9:50:00 PM
From: Arthur Radley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9695

Henry, It looks like I'm still holding JMAR after all. Just got my monthly statements from my broker and realized that I had a couple thousand shares tucked away in another account that I don't trade often. So, I guess I will have to soften my diatribe against JMAR and hope that the next few weeks brings a rebound in the share price. I still have my reservations as to the short term outlook on this puppy.(:>)

To: henry jakala who wrote (4378)	12/6/1997 9:58:00 PM
From: MRothaus1	Respond to of 9695

Small companies do private placements from time to time. I do not feel shafted. And it is still pure speculation that the Swiss investors shorted the stock anyway. Since I paid less than $3.40 for most of my shares, I'm happy somebody else is paying more for the same percentage of the company. Speedy, as per Elizabeth's suggestion on your messages, it is because you put "====" after your name. Only put maybe 10 equal signs after your name, otherwise the message will not wrap properly in people's browsers.

To: henry jakala who wrote (4378)	12/7/1997 5:47:00 PM
From: Starlight	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9695

Henry - I'm not so sure the stockholders have been shafted. After all, the company needed money to bring new products to market, and rather than borrow from a bank and pay high interest, they chose the private placement route -- not at all unusual. Would you rather have them borrow from a bank and have $10 million show up as debt on the balance sheet? Betty

To: henry jakala who wrote (4378)	12/7/1997 8:32:00 PM
From: SPEEDRACER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9695

Consider this... Maybe they needed $ now and the 3.5 mil will hold them over till revenues start coming in, and then they won't need the warrant $ at all. As a matter of fact, they may want the warrants to go unexercised so this way they have only diluted the stock by 1 mil shares instead of 2.5.. Kind of a way to really screw the warrant holders and shareholders. Just a thought. I own both warrants and stock in equall #'s , and would be interested on others thoughts?? SPEEDY==============================================================