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.

Non-Tech : Bill Wexler's Trading Cabana -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: deeno who wrote (6218)	9/19/2013 6:22:12 PM
From: N. Dixon	Respond to of 6370

deeno, been in the stock since 1992. Bill made some bravado statement about the company being a fraud. I told him he was wrong. Apparently he shorted it and it went to 40 on a squeeze and then he bragged about shorting it and it going down. That was 10 years ago. Never been a stock trader. Holding and long REFR. Insiders hold, shareholders hold, you know why? We get it. Bill never did. ND

To: deeno who wrote (6218)	9/19/2013 9:54:54 PM
From: Kevin Podsiadlik	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 6370

Bill first came public on REFR on SI in June 2001, with REFR trading in the mid-20s. His history with the stock prior to then is not known, though Dixon and others enjoy perpetuating the unsupported story that Bill got bought in at the very stop at the height of the dot-com bubble in March 2000 at $40 a share. Bill became vocal on REFR in reaction to a scathing report by Manuel Asensio on the company. asensio.com Best I can tell, Bill relied on Asensio's excellent track record for beating frauds (the Diana Corporation being his signature kill) and decided the time was right to pile on. DIxon and her gang interpreted this as collusion between them (no evidence beyond "they're attacking the same stock" was ever presented of course) and basically saw themselves as victims of conspiracy ever after. Where we stand right now depends on how you define such terms as victory, being right, and fraud. Dixon, of course, subscribes to exceedingly narrow definitions of such. As far as Dixon is concerned, as long as REFR trades, there is no victory for Bill; as long as REFR is in business, Bill has not been proven right; and as long as the management of REFR avoids prosecution, there is no fraud. More reasonably I think, the game was over when REFR's joint venture with Hankuk, SPDi, shut down at the end of March 2004. For three years following that REFR had no supply of product whatsoever (though they repeatedly lied and claimed otherwise), and I must admit it is an accomplishment that Joe Harary kept REFR from going bankrupt during that period, and then managed one last pump into the teens in 2007 that allowed people to get out in one piece. I had thought Dixon to be among those who got out and walked away, but apparently she still feels there is a score to settle. Dixon's analysis may be voluminous but must be considered suspect as she has been caught in numerous outright lies over the years, as have top management at REFR. Probably her most brazen lie was her insistent claim that their had bought a vehicle with an SPD sunroof back in 2005 -- again, right in the middle of the period where there was no SPD to be had at any price. As an aside this stock is the only instance where a cyberspace disagreement breached into real life for me. One REFR pumper with a penchant for creepy stalking didn't care at all for it when I turned the tables on her, and nearly got me fired from a (lousy) job as a result. Luckily I was prepared with counter testimony as to who started the whole business, and the stalker vanished soon after.