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.

Biotech / Medical : Oxford Health Plan (OXHP) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Roader who wrote (410)	12/9/1997 5:26:00 PM
From: Peter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2068

Well, how much worse can it get? I just bought in.....I should learn when stocks are going down there is usually a reason...especially when we had all these signals! If I shorted everything I purchased this past year I'd be rich!

To: Roader who wrote (410)	12/9/1997 5:28:00 PM
From: pogey bait	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2068

Man, all I can say is that they had or have the most irresponsible bookkeeping system in the industry..My god, Wiggins even talks about hiring more seasoned management..How this company ever suceeded this far is beyond me..Thank god for state insurance commissions!This guy must be related to General Geo. Pattton or Custer!!

To: Roader who wrote (410)	12/9/1997 6:56:00 PM
From: Thomas Haegin	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 2068

Re. $164m charge To All: << NORWALK, Conn., Dec. 9 /PRNewswire/ -- Oxford Health Plans, Inc. (Nasdaq: OXHP) announced today that at the direction of the New York State Insurance Department, Oxford is increasing its medical claim reserves in its New York subsidiaries by $164 million during the 4th quarter. This reserve enhancement is designed to protect policyholders and was required as part of the New York Insurance Department's continuing review and examination of Oxford's financial condition. >> So far, I've got it. << Oxford also intends to increase the medical claim reserves of its non-New York subsidiaries. >> How is this one to be interpreted: Is this announced charge for non-NY subs. already included in the above $164m charge or must we expect another extra charge somewhere down the road? Or could it be that they will simply provide more conservatively for non-NY in the regular course of business going forward? I'm confused. Any thoughts ? Thomas