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 : SFLK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric Fader who wrote (415)	2/5/1999 11:07:00 AM
From: KHS	Respond to of 1591

Maybe final contract with NIC is not finalized, last minute snag. But if that is the case, or any other reason other than what IR stated, would be foul stuff. I betting on IR's reason for delay. Simple simple simple!!!

To: Eric Fader who wrote (415)	2/5/1999 11:08:00 AM
From: steveK.	Respond to of 1591

Eric-couldn't they have run it by their counsel and had the counsel say,"you probably should clear it with SEC because it deals with projections and we don't want to make a mistake with them". I admit, I'm not a legal eagle. Happy Returns- stevek.

To: Eric Fader who wrote (415)	2/5/1999 11:20:00 AM
From: ed doell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1591

>>It's not that unusual to release projections, numerical or otherwise, and the SEC's safe harbor for forward-looking statements protects the company from liability for guessing wrong if they hedge the statement properly.<< In the current SEC/BB environment such projections are scrutinized regularly. Particularly since BB stocks do not have to do the usual reports to the SEC. >>It doesn't make sense to me, however, that the SEC would have contacted the company on the SEC's own initiative.<< ++++++++++ It makes a great deal of sense to me. See my prior posts regarding the matter. The SEC monitors such boards, a shareholder could have (not me) alerted them, there are several very plausible and sensible scenarios. >>Unless SFLK's counsel called the SEC and asked whether it would be OK to release projections in a certain form, which would itself have been highly unusual,<< nothing at all unusual about that at all. >>I'm not sure I buy the stated reason for the delay.<< I think Mr Edwards is very forthright and you have the stated reason for the delay. >>Now, if that release is actually being held up for another reason, what might the real reason be??<< I think what you just expressed is what the market calls uncertainty... something which it hates. And this is what you have. Ed