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 : Equinox Systems (EQNX) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Pirate who wrote (535)	6/22/1998 8:23:00 PM
From: HeyRainier	Respond to of 765

Would people be running around pissed that they drove the price down and bought back cheap stock? Interesting dilemma. I myself would consider a treasury purchase of shares to be a positive maneuver on their part. What would be of concern is if management, after selling their holdings, were to immediately purchase them right back at the lower share price. While this could also be seen as a possible vote of confidence, I think it would be overshadowed by the perception that they just duped their shareholders and flipped the shares for a quick buck. Not exactly the kind of image they need right now. From these two scenarios, I think there is a way to get the company to buy back shares and still move towards redemption: a treasury purchase rather than a management purchase (at least those who sold) could allow them to walk this fine line. Just my opinion. Regards, Rainier

To: Pirate who wrote (535)	6/22/1998 8:52:00 PM
From: Dragon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 765

One reason I was originally dubious about this stock when it first started appearing as a buy candidate was it's small float and resultant lack of liquidity. (Evidently not dubious enough!) The problem is, this is a very small company, with sales which were (are?) projected at $35- 37 million (plus or minus) for this year. These sales numbers, and a float of 2.4 million, or 3.6 million or even 5 million should it split a few more times, still places the company in the micro-cap category. This means many institutional investors, including MOST mutual funds, can't or won't even go near a company this size. I believe it's actually spelled out in some fund charters. Rainier may know better on that score. As such, EQNX is just not going to be a stock which attracts the "elephants", nor will it be a stock that affords much liquidity in times of "market distress". And despite some cleaning up by the NASD, I sure wouldn't trust the "market makers" to maintain the fairest of spreads when a stock like this gets hit. I would love to get my hands on a reasonably current list of the top institutional holders of these shares- my guess is that there are a few micro- and small cap funds, some small pension and retirement plans (universities, governments, that sort of thing) and definitely not a lot of "strong hands" on the institutional side. Thus, not a lot to hold up the stock when, as Rainier said, the small shareholders (us Bozos on the bus) are kept in the dark. Hence, a day like today. While I don't think they can be accused (or convicted) of driving down their own stock price, I'm one of those pissed off people running around who's convinced someone somewhere knew something, and that management was asleep at the switch. And sure have a gotten a great buy point as a result. But, and I'm not being facetious, I'm not sure technical charts would stand up in court as evidence of that. Mark Kacer mentioned 600K plus as the number of shares available in the buyback. I think (guess) that is based on splitting of these shares 3 for 2 just like all outstanding shares were split. So, at $8 to 9 a share, there's about $5 million potential buying power in the stock. Again, on a micro -cap, that's not chump change. I too don't envy management one bit. They have a big task ahead of them. But cynic that I am, I have to also remember that that's why they get the big bucks. Best wishes and good luck.