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.

Pastimes : The Justa & Lars Honors Bob Brinker Investment Club -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lex Luther who wrote (5112)	5/13/1999 7:46:00 AM
From: Ian@SI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15132

Justa, When a company deliberately chooses not to communicate with its investors equally, why take this additional risk. Especially, after letting the company know that the SEC officially frowns upon this act which borders on encouraging illegal insider trading. Personally, I believe there are literally dozens of good to outstanding investments. Why should anyone take this additional risk? Perhaps we should organize an Individual Investors' Boycott of those companies that refuse to disclose information to us on an equal basis. Just my 2¢, Ian.

To: Lex Luther who wrote (5112)	5/13/1999 8:12:00 PM
From: Justa Werkenstiff	Respond to of 15132

Lex: Good thoughts on SFAM - NVLS combination. I have to look at it as a stand alone for the cycle currently and not count on a takeover. I would think if Hill wanted this puppy, he would be making his move now and not at the cycle peak with peak valuations. The cycle may well peak before copper is mainstream. But what does taking SFAM bring to him currently that he does not have otherwise? He is already packaging his copper products with SFAM -IPEC if the customer wants it. And if the customer does not want the SFAM solution, then that is fine by him. I am not sure what taking the company now would bring him that he could not otherwise get by sticking with the allliance for now without all the headaches of a merger that is not accretive to the bottom line now without huge effort in imposing the NVLLS model. Long term, I agree with you that the combination would make sense. I am not so sure of the timing. It seems too late to do anything now in this cycle unless he has resigned himself to paying more (keep those SFAM insiders happy) and is willing to wait for Faubert and company to lay the groundwork while he adopts a wait and see attitude.