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 : Fonix:Voice Recognition Product (FONX) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dr. Bob who wrote (2145)	1/29/1999 9:46:00 AM
From: Nancy McKinney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3347

Not necessarily the end game. Read the PR's from yesterday again. 1. They are ready to go forward with marketing as soon as finances restructured. 2. Studdert's resignation was because he had agreed at the start to help get the co. started, and now it is ready to move ahead with more aggressive marketing and his job as CEO is over, but he will stay with the co. as chairman. 3. Why have there been PR's about LHSP DEFENSIVELY reaffirming their alliance with MSFT at this time? Nancy

To: Dr. Bob who wrote (2145)	1/29/1999 8:52:00 PM
From: john harris	Respond to of 3347

Hi Dr. Bob, welcome back! I think it is a good exercise to look back on each and every investment one makes and try to analyze why it was either a failure or a success. What clues were missed in the failure? What clues were caught in the success? One clue is to look at the financing organizations and the structure of the financings that are propping up the cash flow statements of your chosen investment prospect. In the case of FONX, they had rounded up the usual suspects of financing organizations that appear in failed companies. The financings were only made because the financing cos. were guaranteed discounts to the market value at time of stock acquisition. I encourage all to go back to the S-3's over the past 2 years and check out the "Selling Shareholders" names, remember them. Think twice (do your most serious research) before you invest in companies that use them. Another clue is finding wild priced "lock up agreements" that have no legal enforcement. I refer to my post in June,1997 exchange2000.com <<<<2. Insider lockouts at $15 and warrants for engineers at excercisable when stock reaches $37.5>>>>Mark Cox I've discussed, in my prior post, the lack of legal substance behind these "lock-up"announcements. They, in effect, do no "locking up" at all other than to lock up an image in the minds of the small investor. And another post at the same time: exchange2000.com <<<<8.What's wrong with a share lock up agreement. This is a useful, 'shareholder friendly' point.>>>>>>Mark Cox I assume that you are talking about what is commonly called "the engineer's agreement". If you are talking about the Voting Trust agreement by SCC and Beesmark, that's okay because I was referring to both. These agreements can be amended at any point in time. In fact, the SCC agreement has been amended several times, once to raise the lock-up ante to $15/share from $10/share. And why not? They(both SCC folks and the engineers) are restricted by SEC regs from selling their shares for at least one year anyway. Care to place bets on how soon after expiration of the holding period that these "lock-up" clauses disappear? If you have doubts about the above please give outside corporate counsel, Jeffrey Jones, a call in Salt Lake City. I'm sure he'll agree.

To: Dr. Bob who wrote (2145)	1/29/1999 9:07:00 PM
From: john harris	Respond to of 3347

Another clue is observing that companies in the same industry are getting bought out at valuations that are significantly less than the market value of your prospect investment. Regardless of any wild talk of the prospects of the subject company's technology, it is always comfortable to get a valuation versus other companies. Those with significantly high valuations should be scrutinized with caution. Again I refer to a post of mine in the summer of 1997 (FONX was about 7X the valuations of other companies being purchased at the time.): exchange2000.com If FONX tech has a similar valuation (and I don't know whether it does or does not), then add in that $4M of FONX book (secret loans and all) and you've got a $44M valuation or a stock valuation of a little over $1/share. PS: I now believe that FONX valuation has actually dropped in dollar terms. And because of the heavy dilution from the recent and inevitable future financings, the price per share valuation is even lower. My best estimate is approximately 3/8 per share.