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: Afaq Sarwar who wrote (8025)	8/16/1998 10:16:00 PM
From: CH	Respond to of 10479

>>>The share holders will win in two ways from this IPO. One through the exercise of their rights (either sold or converted into the shares of the company) and through the appreciation of Osicom stock. I appreciate this kind of positive comment when I was in primary school. We can always win even we lost a lot of money because we bought this stock. We are accused that we are impatience but after 2-3 years of holding I am not sure what kind of patience we are talking about. In the meantime, why we need to spin off EN to realize its full potential? Osicom is not that big, its total market cap is only $20-25 million, if they knew they made mistakes on IQX, Gigamux and now they want to concentrate on Net+Arm, they have perfect right they can do that, what can we condemn Par further? When they made Net+Arm a successful products, they can then sell further shares to us, the short-sighted shareholders, and to give us a lesson that this is the "proper way" of doing business in technology business. Of course all the IPO is to raise money for the company, but a spin off needs further justification such as a clearer division of specialized management, or the nature of technology became a double focus of the company so some shareholders might prefer one over the other. But what made EN a necessity to spin off from Osicom. I do not want to encourage the management to make another stupid mistake as reverse split, putting EN in IPO right now will most likely invite the last nail to the coffin. CH

To: Afaq Sarwar who wrote (8025)	8/16/1998 10:26:00 PM
From: CMS27	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10479

Can anyone connect Craig Crawford, David Pawlak and Par Chadha? Almost appears as one big good cop bad cop episode. Odd that CC was the only one of the detractors to be sued. Odd because there are so many Osicom detractors, why sue him? Maybe to hide a connection. After all the long suffering longs need someone to blame and instead of blaming Par and the company they could blame CC and some supposed band of shorts. Then you have DP on the pump side playing the good cop, mysterioulsy now hired by the company. Perhaps he knew to much to be just an outsider. How do you cover those tracks? Make him an insider, now who's to say when he knew what. Of course this is total speculation on my part. But an interesting way to look at things. Heck even Barron's could have played a role as a bad cop. Giving those convertible shares a nice low price at which to convert, perhaps old CC just wasn't doing a good enough job causing people to sell so they brought in a biggger hired gun. A lawsuit in England? It satisfies the shareholders as an action, but possibly it's failure was assumed. Money is made by price change, any trader loves volotlity. Different role players just there to help oscillate the price. Again, these are just wild ideas, I don't know any of it as fact. Scott