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: David Wise who wrote (8175)	8/28/1998 9:30:00 AM
From: Ploni	Respond to of 10479

I wonder where Osicom would be today if there had been no Barron's article, no bombardment from shorts right here on SI, plus in media, no Asian crises... And which of these was the biggest factor? Don't worry; bad management can kill a company even with zero publicity. What effect would it have if Par stepped down and Pete Peterson took over all of Osicom? Or if Par had been voted out by shareholders, who truly only have themselves to blame for his continued "leadership." Is it smart to sell when the GigaMux hasn't been through the 18 month cycle that we were advised of months ago? If they had said an 18-year cycle, would your question be the same? For those who insist Par is crooked, how would Par profit from the company going under? I can't figure out how he could buy a million dollars worth of stock recently, do a reverse split and lose 2/3 of his investment, and make money. So maybe he's just incompetent. Either way, you have tied your money to his. If the IPO goes off, and if FIBR keeps needing funds due to loss of sales, how quickly will they sell off their controlling interest in NetSilicon to keep FIBR afloat? If they pull this off, I suspect they would hold onto the controlling interest, and instead IPO GigaSilicon, IQX-Silicon, and Widget_to_Eastern_Secret_Unnamed_Customer (WESUC), etc. Can Pete turn NetSilicon into a Billion dollar company? I still haven't had time to look at the filing. Does it have language in it that says something like, "This company is built on one product, and it's a product that has absolutely no barriers to entry, and in fact there are many other companies pursuing competing products, of which some of those companies have tens of billions of dollars at their disposal."

To: David Wise who wrote (8175)	8/28/1998 2:42:00 PM
From: Shivram Hala	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10479

An IPO under these market conditions will bring in baloney. The IPO itself may be a good candidate to short.

To: David Wise who wrote (8175)	9/1/1998 11:54:00 PM
From: David Wise	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 10479

Funny, I saw the announcement of a new VP for sales of GigaMux line as positive. To me it means it's an area where they need someone experienced, with good contacts, because sales are ramping up. Also, that they have expectations of a good future, here. Apparently Mr.Ed decided that it meant they needed to do something because they weren't getting sales. Could just mean there was a vacancy. The stock price could mean it's a great buying opportunity, or that the game's nearly over. If Bryon's recollections on the IPO handlers is correct, it could mean some creative measures will be taken to boost the price of FIBR or the IPO. Then again, it could mean the SEC will have more clues to trace FIBR to crooks, and Barron's will have another field day. September 11 could be the announcement of more lost sales and big net losses with no accompanying news of additional contracts, and a cancelled IPO. But it could be an earnings announcement where sales held steady compared to last quarter, some big CLECS or other contracts were signed for GigaMux, and IPO is on track for October. Plus more deals for the EN line. So the company will have sales of $80 - 100 million for the year, and the stock's only worth about $17 million. Has anyone heard any news of cost cuttings by Osicom??? Isn't that what a company usually does when sales are down on old product lines and new sales may be 18 months off (going back several months)??? With proper cost cutting, we probably could have had positive earnings statements for the last 4 quarters. Where is the synergistic merger between several companies that are now Osicom? Looks like there has been little effort to combine production, sales, marketing and R&D. Yes, the largest group of employees is in China at low labor cost. But it's still a cost. If anyone gets through on the next conference call, please ask about steps taken to cut costs. With a minimum of $80 million in sales this FY, I don't understand continued losses with no cost cutting. Maybe a call to David Pawlok would shed some light on this. I haven't compared the last 4 quarters' earnings statements, and I remember that certain categories have gone up and down, but I can't recall any decrease in expenses overall. Just sales declines which, though substantial, have not surprised me in the absence of sales contracts for new products. Maybe they'll announce several GigaMux contracts by Sept.11 with large companies and large dollar amounts and all of this will seem irrelevant. But I would still like to know that someone is actually managing the company, not just putting companies together and selling stocks and promises. If the later is the case, there's a lot of potential gone to waste. The technology is there, the techies are there. Par most likely deserves credit for assembling this group. But management is still in question. I think my limit on this question is down to this month. Some respected former stockholders have already reached their limits and answered these questions for themselves. Unfortunately at great cost. I'm still holding all of my stock in the company. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that Barron's article was just a short attack, that GigaMux sales contracts are taking 18 months because that's the timeframe for the 3 phases just like they estimated a year or so ago. I'll assume that the IPO is to raise funds for continuing operation for both FIBR and the new company, and that since FIBR will still own over half of the stock, the funding will result in benefits to both stockholding groups. I'll assume that the 1 for 3 reverse split was an ill-advised attempt to keep the price over $5.00 so they could get NMS listing which would have substantially benefited all shareholders. I'll also assume that the stockmarket roller coaster ride is partly to blame for the continued price drop, not to mention all the fears that Barron's and others have heaped on the company for the past year. At this point I couldn't salvage enough to be worth getting out anyway.