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.

Biotech / Medical : XOMA. Bull or Bear? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: aknahow who wrote (7097)	9/1/1998 1:57:00 AM
From: opalapril	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17367

I am finding it difficult to accept that the McKenzie survey was done at Xoma's behest, although some say that's Ellen's claim. I will believe it when I see her say it and she backs it up with a convincing statement of reasons. The company should have individual, up-to-date shareholder information on hand. They have to, under federal and state law. So, why do a sample survey of some investors when you should have the whole shebang in your data banks? The limited questions asked were peculiar, too. They mostly related to original purchase price & date. Surely such stuff can be tracked easily enough in the company's shareholder data base. If not, then I am REALLY nervous about Xoma's internal business procedures. As for the story that the survey was commissioned without Ellen's knowledge to uncover short selling -- either this is pure hokum or it reveals such naivete as to make one blush. As pointed out elsewhere on this thread, it is highly unlikely conspiratorial short sellers would 'fess up in a brief phone call with a complete stranger. The whole thing just doesn't ring true. Who in the company would authorize such a thing without input from IR? The CEO? House counsel, who is a V-P and recently bought a few shares around $5? The board chair? If true, whoever ordered such a survey has a hole in his head. It seems to me equally improbable the McKenzie people were hired by Xoma because of potential takeovers. Like it or not, management of most companies do not give a rat's ass about individual investors. We are at the very bottom of the food chain, even for a relatively thinly traded stock like Xoma. If faced with a takeover (or in this case as many speculate a "takeunder") wouldn't management be too busy counting their assets and subtracting their liabilities and figuring out what the market would bear and what the board of directors would insist upon and how the funds would take it all, and where the scientists they've been so busy recruiting are going to wind up? Well before giving any thought to us, company management surely would be in touch with the 15? 25? 50? investment fund managers and newsletter writers who have stuck their toes in this stock. Word of that would get out -- albeit to a more restricted circle than the McKenzie survey. Surely, Xoma would realize this. So why risk broader exposure of the fact of the inquiry itself by calling little krill like us instead of talking to whales directly? Finally, there is the matter of the questions themselves, especially the seemingly keen interest in original date of purchase of Xoma shares. This reveals, I think, a predilection to think about shareholders as comprising two or more subgroups based on some key date or event -- Before or After -- ?? Something. I don't know what that something is. There are only a limited number of possibilities. I think we can rule out a Thank You Party for all of us longer term, loyal investors. So, why else would someone want to get a quick and dirty handle on the date individual investors first acquired Xoma shares? A possibility is someone wants the estimate for purposes of a class action lawsuit, defense, or settlement involving one, but not the other, subclass of shareholders. I hasten to add that all of this is pure speculation. I don't know a single fact that would help to explain the call I got the other night. Maybe the rest of you can figure out a more compelling reason -- but a takeover isn't it, IMO.