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 : MRV Communications (MRVC) opinions? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg h2o who wrote (13099)	4/30/1999 1:34:00 PM
From: Sector Investor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42804

Greg, I'm not trying to argue against it so much as trying to understand why financial people think it is so important. Food for thought It seems to me that financial people understand the concept of Financial risk and reward very very well. They don't seem to understand the concept of Entrepreneural risk and reward at all. MRVC "risked" - $950,000 - An initial commitment of their valuable R&D and other support staff - Probably larger future resource commitments MRVC GOT: - 19% of New Access and MetroFusion - Options to acquire more in 2 stages ($1 million per stage) at the same low price - Time (12 and 18 months) in which to let the market place examine MetroFusion and make it's own acceptance/rejection of the technology. SuperComm was a superb first step. During this time MRVC also gets continuous independent feedback from their own people as to the technology and prospects. MRVC still owns only 19% and risked only a small amount of money. If New Access flops, they can still walk away. If New Access succeeds, they exercise their options (which probably require them to make addition resource commitments too) and potentially get a return 100+ times their investment down the road. I still like this better than buying back 3.77% of the shares.

To: Greg h2o who wrote (13099)	4/30/1999 5:37:00 PM
From: J. Conley	Respond to of 42804

I'll add my two cents, since I have in the past commented on why insider buying would be a positive. 1. The management of this company can not be trusted, and they lack credibility on the street. 2. Lack of selling is not a positive. The only thing that kept the company from shareholder lawsuits last year was the lack of insider selling. IMO, management mislead shareholders. The entire business and outlook of a company does not change as quickly as was portrayed by management when the company finally completed the debt financing (everything is positive) and then just a few (or several) weeks later pre-warned (boy, things look bleak). 3. Although I think Pink is too bombastic and self-serving in many of his opinions, he likely knows more than I do about the character of management. I think he was right about that. 4. A technological lead has never meant much to this company, and can quickly be overcome by competing companies. So, management owns a lot of shares; they always have. If it's a sure thing, and things are great, buy more. That is why I take a "show me" approach to this company. Also, I might have mentioned this before, but I called IR several times and could never get an answer concerning the company's "factored" receivables. A couple of times I was promised an answer, but never got one. I finally gave up. Do I believe the management of this company? No. Does management believe in the company's prospects? I don't know. As a matter of disclosure, I am not short even a single share. Why the post? I am watching, and may go long at some point, but am not convinced. Regards, jc