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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Bill Wexler's Profits of DOOM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mama Bear who wrote (2461)	9/8/1998 7:47:00 PM
From: RockyBalboa	Respond to of 4634

Hi, Barb. I'm not talking fraud or other crying fire here but heres something to look at: HEB I watched the sharp runup of Hemispherx (AMEX:HEB). Most of the time, a $3 and under stock, it went over 12 in the meantime. Some issues are a bit disturbing, though. There are also some questions regarding insider activity, you probably know the mechanics of that. 1) HEB insiders filed some planned sales ahead of the run up. Is there any limitation on "Planned Sale" filing regarding limited time horizon ,ie. a planned sale must be consummated in a certain time period or it expires? Furthermore one insider "disposed" near 100k shares, whatever it means. I concede that recent insider activity is low, compared to the 21M outstanding shares. biz.yahoo.com 2) The co's numbers are not that sound, and the co. itself warns in their recent 10-k. Till now, the co has been in development stage neglectible revenues and a high demand to do financing as they consistently achieve negative cash flows. Financing history consists of a series of private placement, preferred stock, and warrant issues. Recently a preferred class E convertible preferred is outstanding but reading through the sec filing history did not bring to lights at which terms conversion may occur, the only S3 from feb 5 1998 registered an amount of shares which were enough to cover the preferred at a < $2 price. According to the recent 10-k, there are 3850 preferres shares still outstanding. The company is valued at a decent $240M market cap, with a $10m shareholder equity and some $6M cash, while burning 2M per quarter. Though, they state that they brought in $5M by issuing common stock to warrantholders after Jun 30 1998. In the past, warrant strikes have been around $3-4. 3) Company warns in "LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES" ... "Because of the Company's long-term capital requirements, it may seek to access the public equity market whenever "conditions are favorable", even if it does not have an immediate need for additional capital at that time. Any additional funding may result in significant dilution and could involve the issuance of securities with rights which are senior to those of existing stockholders. The Company may also need additional funding earlier than anticipated, and the Company's cash requirements in general may vary materially from those now planned, for reasons including, but not limited to, changes in the Company's research and development programs, clinical trials, competitive and technological advances, the regulatory process, and higher than anticipated expenses and lower than anticipated revenues from certain of the Company's clinical trials for which cost recovery from participants as been approved." Comment: A rise from under 3 to 12 may indicate that "favorable conditions" (see first sentence) have been established? What do you think? Do you eventually know someone who has an opinion on HEB? Christian

To: Mama Bear who wrote (2461)	9/8/1998 7:51:00 PM
From: Merg	Respond to of 4634

<<<Exactly what is your motive in posting on this thread....Do you get a kick out of disrupting a thread with off topic babble?>>> Barbara dear..people who live in glass houses...etc...etc...etc... Tsk...tsk...tsk.

To: Mama Bear who wrote (2461)	9/8/1998 9:38:00 PM
From: AHM	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4634

The first thing I would recommend to you, Barbara, is to learn to read! In the message you responded to I made a very clear distinction (with an example) between opinion and libelous statements of fact. I stated that opinion is perfectly ok - but libel is not. Why do you object to the necessity of providing substantiation when it is stated as "fact" that a fraud has been committed? Or are you so loosey-goosey that you don't care to sort out facts from opinion? For instance, how would you like it if I were to make personal accusations about your morality and promiscuousness that were solely my opinion, but represented as fact, and totally false with no substantiation whatsoever, but posted where everybody could read such libelous statements? Moreover, how would you feel if these postings disclosed your real name so that anybody who knows you could react according to what they read regardless of the truth. YOU WOULD BE JUSTIFIABLY IN A FURY! Corporations and their investors are entitled to fair treatment and protection from libel just as you are. And those who have the resources and can point to damages from such libelous statements are entitled to sue. More of them are now doing just that to protect their managements and companies from those who hide behind masks and who make convincing arguments to disguise opinion as if it is fact. Although the SEC emphasis is clearly on hyping stocks (there's more of that than hyping negatively to improve the profits on a short position), what makes you think that hyping them to improve the profits of a short position is any different. Impunity? ABSOLUTELY NOT. And if you think the SEC is not interested in the internet, the following are opening paragraphs of a series of articles in "thestreet.com". It was written almost 2 years ago. Don't you think the SEC has gone much further by now? Market Features: Talking With the SEC's Top 'Net Cop: Part One 11/26/96 3:00 PM ET If the Internet is the Wild West of Wall Street, a frontier where investors, speculators, and scam artists seek fortunes through fair means and foul, John Reed Stark is the Net's sheriff. Stark is the top Internet enforcer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, which regulates U.S. capital markets. During the last two years, the SEC has increased its scrutiny of the Net, filing more than a dozen cases accusing people of promoting stocks or soliciting money for fraudulent investments over the network. But the commission does more on the Net than just chase bad guys. The SEC says its Internet site is one of the Web's most popular resources for investors, getting 200,000 hits daily. Investors download 2-3 million pages of files from the site each day and the site also receives about 30 email tips daily from investors concerned about scams, frauds and illicit stock promotions. If you subscribe you can read it all. You ask why I post on this thread. It's to bring a sense of proportion, balance and inquiry regarding Wexler's motives for making libelous statements of fraud which, when challenged, he has not once answered with a factual response. He's like the disobedient child who when asked why he/she did something they know they mustn't do, responds "because" and continues the same improper behavior.