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 : Data Broadcasting Corp. (DBCC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kimberly Lee who wrote (4160)	1/17/1999 11:02:00 PM
From: ztect	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 5102

Kimberely, funny how one's position effects "objective facts" Disclaimer: I still am holding a sizable short position, so my opinions, as much as I try to balance it, can very well be colored by the position I already hold. Massive insider's selling by the co-CEO's? Or by an outgoing director whose company was bought in 1994? "Massive" is pretty emotionally laden language don't you think? An effort at demogoguery? Funny I saw a very interesting article on an "indicator" that many people use as a "buy signal". Namely the flip side of the "sell signal" of "massive" insider selling, that signal being insider "buying". I put the "buying" in quotes because what was actually occurring was officers of the companies in question got loaned shares instead of cash. When these shares appreciated, they disposed of these "shares" without having to pay any interest typically by covering the cost of the the "loan" and even taking some profits. I'm pretty sure this is what happens, though I need to track down the NY Times article where I saw the explanation to make sure If I can find this article, I'll certainly share it with you. Now as for my point, certain "indicators" can be deceiving. Certainly most agree that insider buying is a better barometer to buy, then insider selling is a barometer to sell. However, per the article I cited, "buying" may not indeed be buying (especially since I hear this practice is spreading) and thus your assertion that there was "massive" inside selling may be the spin of a shorter especially since the co-CEO's still retain 90-95% percent of their original shares. Thus wouldn't you agree that it is important to qualify which exact insiders are selling? If the co-CEO's were selling in additon to the titular director of a bought out company, I'd agree with the term "massive". But since the CEO's aren't, I have to state I disagree with your use of the word "massive" as it pertains to this "indicator" and , since this word's connotations are a bit too emotional and, therefore, may be construed as an attempt to manipulate. I also have to say that these words "...diluting an already large float (at least by internet stocks standard)..." are also a gross exageration. Yahoo, Amazon and AOL quickly come to mind to contradict this assertion, I'm certain I can find many other companies that both re-inforce and contradict your biased assessment. Well, at least, you provided a DISCLAIMER, even if you omitted certain salient information to really attempt to provide a balanced point of view..... Though, I have to say I appreciate this appearingly rational attempt to shake free some shares from what you perceive to be weak hands. Your approach is refreshing especially in comparison to that of little tony's rants and ravings. Good night and on Tuesday, we shall see how the market determines which "perception" of objectivity actually turns out to be "true". Sincerely, ztect