SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Xinex Networks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Steve Kirk who wrote (493)3/24/1998 8:00:00 PM
From: AuldDruid  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 693
 
I've picked up information from a fairly reliable source in another company - in other words, pretty good info, but I'm not SURE of it - that Xinex intends to address the financing issue in a series of news releases over the next few weeks. If they're prudent, they'll address the issue of stock dilution as well. In my experience a larger number of shares around tends to improve the realistic evaluation of the market for the shares, and reduce the opportunity for short term 'squeezes'(manipulations) going either way. This still gives plenty of opportunity for a good company to improve its valuation, without any of the scary, unexplainable manipulations by 'squeeze' players. I would rather have lots of shares out, so the best and most efficient market is established.
The only problem I see, is XNX may have to consolidate eventually, in order to gain a senior exchange listing, but that doesn't result in a loss of $$value if the prospects are real, as recent reports in the press have shown in the USA( I don't remember where, but I know I read them - they proved conclusively that 'conventional wisdom' was wrong for good companies). This financing saves the company, increases its potential, and reserves the opportunity for future gains to the existing and new shareholders, and not to some predator company on the takeover trail. It can't help but be good with corporate finances as they are now, IMHO.