Lee: Something that Waverider said in his one post here has stuck
in my brain, and perhaps, you, or someone here, could apply
the cold grip of logic to the argument. Waverider said something
to the effect: Why aren't you men rankled about losing 80% of
your investment vis a vis the break-up of Intercell Corp (INCE)
and the creation of Intercell Technology (ITCO)?
The argument:
1)For the sake of discussion, INCE closed at $.80; ITCO at $1.60.
That totals $2.40 which, I surmise, is fairly close to the median
value of the original Intercell (INCE + ITCO) during this year.
At this point, based on respective share prices, INCE constitutes
1/3 of the original whole; ITCO 2/3 of the original whole.
2)Each share of Intercell(old) is worth 1/5 of a share of ITCO.
3)Hence, we had a three slice pizza pie representing one share
of Intercell(old). Comes Mr. Neild. Neild takes two slices of
the pie leaving us one slice, now worth 80 cents. In return for
his high regard for the original shareholders, he allows them 1/5
of the 2/3 he has taken, i.e., 1/5 of the $1.60 ITCO share price
or 32 cents. That plus 80 cents equals $1.12.
4)Therefore, for a share that may have been worth $2.40, each
holder now has, ceteris paribus, shares equal to only $1.12.
5)Question: What happened to the other $1.28?
Henry is in the box. But where?
|
