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 : Techniclone (TCLN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: EZLibra who wrote (2563)	9/23/1998 11:33:00 AM
From: PDavid	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3702

Davis, with respect, I would like to know why this answer is the only way to go. I differ in opinion. I have voted no and will put the management to task. In the worst scenario, the need for more shares becomes more urgent down the road and they call a special meeting just as they did with the S-3 situation. No way should they have free reign now. If they do their jobs, this will become a non-issue. To me, the only way to vote is against the proposal. I am ready to make Tustin put up or shut up. Again, I emphasize no risk. At worst, a special meeting gets called down the road. Why should we vote now just so they have "breathing room". This company, as we well know, operates poorly when they feel too comfortable. Put their backs up against the wall and I guarantee we see results. Phil

To: EZLibra who wrote (2563)	9/23/1998 3:16:00 PM
From: Jim Baker	Respond to of 3702

I have to concur with PDavid on this one. This management has made absolutely no effort to communicate its financing strategy with the shareholders, and has shown no actual progress on that strategy (just a lot of things -- like licensing -- that are said to be "in the works"). So I ask myself: why give management another blank check? The S-3 is filed. I have had conversations with shareholders who do not understand the financing we are voting on. Lawsys and Davis offer NO explanation of how that deal works and what its true cost to the company and us shareholders is. So I ask myself: why give management another blank check? Real financings are based on a firm stock price. A rising stock price is based on new money coming to the story. Has management brought any new buyers into this stock? Answer: The stock price keeps falling, not rising. So I ask myself: why give management another blank check? Davis says: <<There's also a considerable short out there creating an artificially depressed price now.>> As I have stated before, the short can't do what he says they are doing unless there is an absence of buyers of the stock. And that absence of buyers would be due to....(we all know the rest of the story). << looks like they only want producers drawing paychecks.>> This is laughable! The fact is, the current management appears to be in full support of this small underfunded company keeping current and previous non-producers on the payroll, earning five figures a MONTH. The current management likes compensation packages with rolling 12- and 24-month salary contracts and options that reset every time management screws up. As usual, Davis and Lawsys have failed to give a balanced, well-grounded perspective. Given the current circumstances, I have only contempt for lap dogs of management and "yes" voters. That's just what I am thinking. Far from seeking to influence anyone, I hope each shareholder gives full and independent thought to each item on the proxy.

To: EZLibra who wrote (2563)	9/24/1998 8:33:00 PM
From: Jim Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3702

I have learned a valuable thing or two from Davis over the years, but noticed this on Yahoo tonight, and would please ask that the market maker mumbo jumbo jive stop ASAP. BTW, this is not good news. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Message 12564 of 12575 SHORT SHARES pt777 Sep 24 1998 5:02PM EDT 511,784 Shares. This information was from Sean in New York. This sucks! Well Davis, wrong again. "The greatest anxiety is now firmly on the shorters' side. 3.3 million shares were declared short last August 15. Normally a nasdaq trade of any size in an open market takes about 5 x normal volume so some 16.5 million shares would have to trade for the 3.3 million shares to be covered. The short, due out Wednesday or Thursday, is probably greater. There is no way the shorts can cover without taking the stock up, WAY up." what say you now oh king of BS!!?? PT

To: EZLibra who wrote (2563)	11/23/1998 12:16:00 PM
From: Gutterball	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3702

I'd like to know what everybody thinks of that little bit of financing TCLN did a while back with Cappello Capital? Also, has anybody checked out the companies that Cappello has helped in the past? Here is a brief list of those who have received gracious financial conditions #reply-6529861. BTW, I'm still looking for a company that is better off for having done business with Cappello, so if anyone can point me to it, I'd appreciate it. I've looked just briefly at your financing agreement. The mechanisms are in place to cause a world of hurt (eg, Reg D balloon), particularly if TCLN price falls below a buck (eg., $0.20 discount). Somebody might want to look into why TCLN just got a new CFO and who put him there. Of course, I'm sure most here are more interested in the uptick than financial agreements. But from looking at the agreement I submit TCLN price will be moving lower. Also, it wouldn't hurt to watch the short interest on TCLN. viwes.com