Thanks for taking the time to reply with all the "human-interest chat"... such assessments sometimes are as determinative as "nuts and bolts ...." Judging from the comments I have been following for the past year, some of us are wondering what a "bolt" is...
You are correct that Oxley died. At least I so assume, since there is a "John T. Oxley Estate" ... maybe created in October 1996?? Makes me wonder if he died due to shock and stress precipitated last year when PRST dropped from its 200 high??? The Oxleys are oil and gas people I assume, and probably very used to some ups and downs. But if John T. bought some one or two million shares at 200 each, only to see them go to 40,... well, it is a little disappointing... even a true bear would be a little empathic, I would think.
According to EDGAR filings, it looks like the late John T. Oxley held about 7% of the stock at in early 1996. For all we know, he doubled or tripled his holdings in May, and then sold a lot at a loss in September ...and then the "Estate" took over due to unexplained circumstances, death perhaps? Anyway, a John C. Oxley "co-executor" survives,now, along with a Thomas E. Oxley and a Mary Jane Oxley Tritsch. [Possibly John T.'s children?] Plus there is a John C. Killin, an attorney that somehow plays a large role in controlling present and former "Oxley" holdings of Presstek. It looks like the surviving Oxleys along with Killin control well over 5%. In fact, since I do not know how to read EDGAR information critically, it appears like the "Oxley" holdings have increased this past year and the registered portion of the remaining "Oxley" connection may control over 10%.
Other big players (but persons I assume are part of management) I should have also asked you about are Robert Howard ssn 103-12-7580 and Dr. Lawrence Howard ssn 062-44-5577... each apparently holds over 8.7% of the stock [maybe approximately 1.4 million shares each?]. Does that mean together they control 17%+?? [BTW, is the "Dr." an academic --a degree in printing technology, perhaps?--, medical, religious, or fraternal title of some sort?]
I assume the presence of the Howards was felt at the meeting... not only in the overwhelming power of the proxy vote, but also in the confidence participants apparently place in the management in general. Your conclusion that "...there's something very nice about that place and those people" suggests to me an important measure of the Howards. By the way, if you know, are they father and son, brothers, even related? Although I can try and guess where the Howard influence will fit in while the future saga of Presstek unfolds, I cannot guess what the Oxley contingency is up to ...so that is why I wondered if their presence was even evident at the meeting.
In re the "SEC spy": that would have been the person who focused upon conversations with those who appeared to have a strong rapport with Neil or Lutts or some prominent insider. The TV character "Columbo"is patterned after the typical "spy" ...often hiding their mission in disjointed talk ...and lots of imbibing or bumbling around, all along looking for character traits ("weaknesses?" in particular) and secretly drawing conclusions based upon them. Many people sometimes and at various times fit such a description, but the true spy is a person on a mission and one who with cold and calculated deliberation commits observations to paper and secret reports filed away with the investigating bureaucracy, the SEC in this case.
I sincerely doubt you would necessarily know who the spy was or even if there was one at the meeting [spies do go to significant effort to disguise their motives], but I did think you or someone may have suspected such a spy had attended and might have suspected some particular individual.
Needless to say, but you did say it so well: "It's all subjective, of course." Thanks to you again, and to you others who contribute and share comments about the meeting and personalities there. It does help and amuse we threaders who were not able to attend, and it apparently has also amused some of those normally "nuts and bolts" types who did attend ...was it Joe who liked being 5-6 years younger than his ancient "29 years"?. As for me, I am going to keep to my true age and the impression I leave and live of "38" ...always one year younger than those who are perpetually 39!
zz
|
