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 : Osicom(FIBR) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ploni who wrote (7576)	7/17/1998 10:05:00 PM
From: R.NORTH	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10479

I believe I suggested the shareholder lawsuits about 40,000 dollars ago personally. I gave up discussing it when 14,000,000 of the frickin idiot shareholders voted to keep Par.IMHO Par has a Napolean complex.He does not believe anyone can run the company but him.It is my understanding he is of Indian origin where they have the cast system.Take one guess what level of the cast system us shareholders are put on.Par evidently considers shareholders unworthy of explanations.Sheep who voted for him repeat after him I am unworthy,I am unworthy,bahh,bahhh,bahhhh! He is no genius but we are a bunch of idiots.IMHO

To: Ploni who wrote (7576)	7/17/1998 11:21:00 PM
From: David Wise	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10479

Charley (Mr. would-be president) - the fact is you haven't lost anything. You'll own the same percentage of the company after the reverse as you do now. It's not hard to see why every FIBR news item that can have a negative interpretation will be interpreted negatively. Before Iomega ran up to over $150 it languished at $1.00 and received the same treatment. I would feel a lot better if someone had included a reason in the press release. On the other hand, if they said it was to gain investors who will not consider stocks under $5.00, but who will buy after reverse split at $9.00, they put themselves in risk of a stockholder lawsuit if it doesn't take place. As far as the claim that "99%" of companies who do a reverse split go down in price, I'd say from my experience it's more like 67% (admittedly not a sufficient sample size to draw conclusions, though). I don't know their current name, but the former USTS did a 1 for 10, had a very short term decline, then came in with good earnings and increased considerably before merging or being bought out. I think they about doubled. Fundamentally, nothing really changes. Since you claim that this is "tantamount to robbing the existing shareholders", I guess you'd yell "foul" if the bank gave you a hundred dollar bill for 5 - $20's. (4 - $20's???) I kind of like the fact that there will now be only 7 million shares outstanding. Scott listed several possible benefits. I think this will draw some margin buying, especially if followed by some good news. Would I have preferred that the price go up on good news without a reverse? Of course. But if I was a major investor, I'd be jumping in now while people panic. One thing they may have also considered is that if they do the EN IPO before reversing, and if they don't retain a large ownership within FIBR, the remaining stock value may need a boost until sales are announced. Of course if you subscribe to the idea that Par is a crook, surely you would think he wants it to go down just so he can buy it and drive the price up. So if you really think this, you should be buying. Truth is, you're just frustrated. You don't know what's going on, you have no control, and you don't trust those who do have control. News that you don't understand becomes negative. Sell, Charley. You need the rest! No, then you might shoot yourself when it goes up. Oh, well, Dr. David I guess I'm not!