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 : QGLY - Funny Name Great Product. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: drakes353 who wrote (8790)	2/19/1999 11:24:00 AM
From: WHL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8960

CNXS had no patent. They admitted this from the beginning. The comparison is inaccurate. Also, QGLY is not losing money and they will not be losing money in the foreseeable future IMO. Companies that trade below cash (CTIC did recently for example) are speculative companies that are LOSING large quantities of cash. We will be closer to $10 than to $3 at the end of 1999. (PS. & disclaimer: I bought recently at $5.00- I've been away for a long time because I like underpriced issues).

To: drakes353 who wrote (8790)	2/20/1999 12:03:00 AM
From: Richard Miller	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8960

Drakes....I think you're missing the obvious master plan of the self-serving CEO. It's simple you buy back as many of the shares of the executives and insiders with company assets, I.E. cash as possible. $11,900,000 on the last go around. Suppose Quigley, Phillips and Kates wanted to just sell their shares. without the support of the Quigley cash. They'd probably end up with less than $1.00 per share with those shockingly low earnings. It's just one more way IMHO, along with the skim, to funnel the Quigley cash into the hands of insiders. Why haven't you noticed that? Of course they also are using the shareholders money to increase the percentage of the co. they own with their remaining shares. Apparently as long as there is cash in the till, around earnings announcement time, you will see Q absorbing 100,00 0 shares plus with two of the weaker marketmakers in America buying like they're made of money. Notice also the advertising went to $6,000,000 from $2,000,000 while sales dropped around 40%. Some effective campaign. They'll probably spend 12,000,000 next quarter in a desparate attempt to keep gross sales, (and their skim as high as possible.) That should drop their sales 60% at least if we can extrapolate. Just as I have predicted for a couple of years. Quigley is a classic. Should be a Harvard business school study. Anybody got a broadway show or other thespian event, Q can sponsor? Could it be someone in the family is a would be actor?