Forum Archive Index - April 2000

["hugh webber" <hugh.webber@clear.net.nz>]

sorry Jane, I missed your message, I've been tied up in daughter No 2's
wedding with a house full of guests & 
so haven't been able to follow sharechat properly. 
Um, that really puts me on the spot. Its quite possible that the bright boy
they brought in to come
up with a Mein Kampf for Eric Watson's tech interests may produce a rabbit
out of the hat for Aquaria yet
on the other hand they might just move the NTA out at 4 to 5 cents for
shareholders. Maybe one move might be
to buy an equivalent number of Aquaria options to protect your rear in case
it does come off and to sell Aquaria
and put the proceeds into say Solution6 in Australia which is practically
guaranteed by Telstra and is starting its recovery
from the tech dip towards where it got to before which I think was about
$A12.50 (today about $A9.40) or you may have some better idea.

cheers,
Hugh
----------
> From: Phyllis  Taylor <phyl@clear.net.nz>
> To: sharechat@sharechat.co.nz
> Subject: Re: [sharechat] my tuppence worth on constructive criticism vs
robust debate
> Date: Monday, 10 April 2000 11:08
> 
> Me too -  not a tech buy - just a join in the attitude buy!!!!!!!!
> Phyllis
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Graham <graham@ts.co.nz>
> To: <sharechat@sharechat.co.nz>
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 8:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [sharechat] my tuppence worth on constructive criticism vs
> robust debate
> 
> 
> > Hugh
> >
> > Thanks for bringing up AQL.  I have a dilemma as to what to do with
those
> > lovely shares  purchased at 21c.
> >
> > I sold half the small holding on the way down but now dont know if I
> should
> > wait for the promised land to materialise or put the money elsewhere. 
As
> a
> > newbie investor how do you make such a call?
> >
> > I'd appreciate your thoughts and anyone else who has such pearls to
offer.
> >
> > Thanks and kind regards
> >
> > Jane
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: hugh webber <hugh.webber@clear.net.nz>
> > To: sharechat@sharechat.co.nz <sharechat@sharechat.co.nz>
> > Date: 7 April 2000 08:18:AM
> > Subject: [sharechat] my tuppence worth on constructive criticism vs
robust
> > debate
> >
> >
> > >While I agree that personal abuse of participants and public figures
> > >such as Eric Watson has to be out (we may have been lucky to escape
some
> > >sort of legal case for a start) and that inventing derogatory names
for
> > >companies
> > >doing badly, while quite clever and amusing and apt, is rather
pointless
> > >there are some elements which disturb in the lack of a robust debate.
> > >Sure arguments have to involve facts and not just journalese
interviewing
> > >of one's
> > >typewriter but take the Aquaria case as an example.
> > >When it was trading at about 21 cents with no actual tech business or
> > >factual
> > >possibility of one, it was going on momentum trading and association
with
> > >'names'.
> > >When I pointed out it was a 'risky share'  due to its chequered
history
> and
> > >some
> > >of those involved and asked what its NTA per share was (4 to 5 cents)
I
> was
> > >roundly abused and called negative etc.
> > >Further analysis shows that of the 'names' there are a number
involved,
> not
> > >just one,
> > >and that there is no history for some of these 'names' for acting
> together
> > >and that
> > >the major 'name' is interested in an ASX listing not an NZSE listing
so
> > >that a real
> > >possibility is that the NTA will be just shovelled out of Aquaria to a
> > >vehicle in Oz -
> > >the NTA involved is only pocket money to the 'names' involved after
all.
> > >Current price -
> > >about 12 to 13 cents I believe; so was buying at 20 cents & risky or
not?
> > >Anyway that is by the way, the issue is that factual points need to be
> > >considered
> > >even if they are in the reverse direction to the momentum desired. I
> could
> > >point to
> > >several other cases if required but I won't exacerbate old wounds.
> > >I'd just people to be able to point to facts without getting abused as
> > >'negative' or
> > >comments like 'dishing it out but not being able to take it' - rather
a
> > >mysterious
> > >remark but I'll let that pass.
> > >
> > >But anyway lets get on with the game of factual discussions of the
> > >sharemart,
> > >there are some really promising situations on hand - at least to a
long
> > >term value
> > >investor.
> > >
> > >cheers,
> > >hugh
> > >
> >
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

> > -
> > >http://www.sharechat.co.nz/          New Zealand's home for market
> > investors
> > >To remove yourself from this list, please us the form at
> > >http://www.sharechat.co.nz/forum.html.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > http://www.sharechat.co.nz/          New Zealand's home for market
> investors
> > To remove yourself from this list, please us the form at
> > http://www.sharechat.co.nz/forum.html.
> >
> 
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

> http://www.sharechat.co.nz/          New Zealand's home for market
investors
> To remove yourself from this list, please us the form at
> http://www.sharechat.co.nz/forum.html.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/          New Zealand's home for market investors
To remove yourself from this list, please us the form at
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/forum.html.