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

To: Suma who wrote (686)	3/12/1999 10:52:00 AM
From: TimeToMakeTheInvs	Respond to of 828

I sold this morning Suma, cannot and will not ever trust this management again. Can never forget buyer beware, just terrible. My empathy to everyone else who bought the story. tim

To: Suma who wrote (686)	3/12/1999 11:16:00 AM
From: Short A. Few	Respond to of 828

COMS pulled the same plan a few weeks earlier. Haven't seen any lawsuits there yet, but that won't be the case for SFSK. SFSK was a lot worse both in magnitude of the problem and in the magnitude of the incompetency. But the real problem is inside information. In these cases, inside information was obviously used to the tremendous advantage of large holders. The small investor is furnished with a rosy picture in public, while the institutional holder demands and gets the real poop and can act on it with impunity. And there are many many more examples. I've long thought that SI might be an excellent medium to document the magnitude of the problem of large holders trading with inside information to the extreme disadvantage of the small investor. This trading is illegal, but apparently too difficult to prove. I am not aware of any effort to change the standards for legal action, or to make legal proof possible. It's about time small investors insisted with a clear voice that the SEC enforce the law, in my opinion. Selective dissemination of information is supposed to be illegal too, but the SEC appears to be unwilling or is unable to enforce this law either. These common present market practices are given the air of legitimacy by the inaction and even complicity of the all leading financial firms. Should we start a thread to document instances of the abuse of inside information by large holders? Your comments would be interesting (the less emotional, the better - but I am one to talk!!!) Or, should the laws be changed to conform with actual practice? Or, are we barking up a non-existent tree? LOL, Short

To: Suma who wrote (686)	3/12/1999 11:40:00 AM
From: Steven Dopp	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 828

I will not buy more as management cannot be trusted. Either they are less than forthcoming, or they are, IMHO, incompetent. Either way, I cannot trust management's guidance. At this point, I do not know if I will sell or hold. I will at least hold for the weekend. I suspect I will sell on a bounce up into the $12 range. I cannot adequately analyze/project future revenue and eps growth from companies with untrustworthy management. Therefore, I cannot, with any degree of assurance, project future revenues and earnings for this company. Therefore, you can bet that at some point during the next 12 months I will sell.