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: craig crawford who wrote (8033)	8/17/1998 1:22:00 PM
From: Joseph Hoane	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10479

Craig,Barb, There is something wrong here. I don't know what, We still have no proof of misconduct of any kind, but the ticker shows something is wrong. (Good faith conduct or not.) I have one fact to add to the jumble, which either catches Mr. Chadda in a lie or shows his complete ignorance. I am convinced that the CSFB bond is a floorless convertible. Mr. Chadda stated in the last conference call something about the 4.99% limit on ownership of Osicom by CSFB. He implied that there was nothing for the shareholders to worry about because of this limit. I have read this document and there is nothing to prevent CSFB from converting, dumping, converting, dumping, up to the 20% limit we have discussed. I don't understand why the shareholders, even Mr. Chadda would approve converting more than 20%, but 20% more shares outstanding is serious enough. Anyway, either Mr. Chadda was lying by saying the shareholders were protected by the 4.99% limit or he had no clue of the danger. Either way, it seems that once the death spiral is started, it is hard to get out. Either way, I would rather have Bill Gates as my proxy to make money for me. I think I'll go buy MSFT with the shreds of what I have left. Craig and Barb, let me put words in your mouths and then you tell me if I am correct. You thought there was something wrong with Osicom because of a pattern of behavior of the management which seemed bent on distributing stock rather than selling product. You have mentioned. 1. Name dropping of big name partners with no effect on the bottom line or on the top line. 2. Breaking promises about the amount of stock dilution which would be allowed. 3. What else? Financing with floorless convertibles then implying that the convertible is not floorless. 4. Any reverse-split. I would add: 1. Offshore partnerships. 2. Changing the wife's status so her actions need not be reported to the SEC. 3. Six months of declining stock price. (terrible looking chart.) This stock had the behavior of popping on news then drifting even lower. Is that one of the signs? Joe