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: EPS who wrote (2650)	10/18/1998 9:02:00 PM
From: md1derful	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3702

Vic: How ya doin'...still suffering over at tbr, and here for that matter...my $.02 on reverse splits...the stock ALWAYS goes down to the pre-reverse split price...ALWAYS...been slowly averaging down on this puppy...we can REALLY average down if reverse occurs (which it won't). Regards

To: EPS who wrote (2650)	10/19/1998 5:55:00 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3702

Victor, Since I can't recall anyone who agrees with the 10 good reasons for cutting the number of shares, I think you are probably right to speak for the thread in saying you have had it with the idea of a reverse split. It almost sounds from the rabid opinion about any reverse splits, irrespective of the circumstances surrounding the company in question, that the SEC should make them illegal. People do agree that institutional investors aren't interested under $5. They do agree that delisting does occur. They agree that delisting is not good for existing shareholders. They agree that brokers get more money for low priced stocks. They agree that stocks under $5 can't have margin debts against them, which can cause margin calls and forced selling of TCLN shares. They agree that liquidity is good. Etc. I quite sincerely am surprised that nobody agrees that a share reduction is a good idea. But that's fine with me. I protect myself against what I consider bad decisions by removing myself from the effects of those bad decisions as much as possible. Also, I'll take advantage of those bad decisions if the opportunity arises to achieve the goals I have, which is successful, profitable and very early introduction of TNT, VTA, Oncolym and the freezer full of products and advancing my financial interests. [Plus the normal things people want]. I suspect the opportunity will arise by way of refinancing requirements by TCLN from the base of a low share price as $20m won't get the products to production. Licensing is an option, too, but that reduces TCLN sales. You misconstrue my points to call it an attempt to fool investors with arbitrary valuations and trickery. I clearly pointed out the arbitrary requirements come from outsiders such as Nasdaq, brokers, institutional investors, margin rules etc. Nobody will be fooled. It is stupid for TCLN to try to trick people - all that does is cause mistrust. Unless TCLN is a con game, in which case tricking people would be the name of the game. Some would say it has been that way at times - run primarily for the benefit of management instead of shareholders. Anyway, I reckon anyone who wants to can understand the points I've made. So, CU later, Maurice [Yes, I sold my TCLN - for various reasons, none of which was to do with the likely clinical success of TNT, Oncolym and VTA, which from what I can see, should be successful products. Not good enough to cure all cancers, but plenty good enough to play a role in ameliorating them] Incidentally, I resent people telling me what are approved ideas. Sounds like George Orwell's 1984 to me! I heard that discussing ideas is the purpose of SI. Especially it's annoying when people just tell me what I write is nonsense with no reasoning to back up their comment.