Some good thoughts Cal and well put forth.
As I read your take on the Aqua deal I couldn't help but wonder "So what if Aqua is an arbitrager and it intended to be so from the outset in spite of the legalities of the deal?"
You state, if Acqua breached the agreement and happened to be caught, then DMX definitely should sue. But I doubt this also. I surley doubt that too. No matter what Aqua's motivation is, short term arbitrage or long term capital gain, DMX needs their continued support for the time being. If the TSE regulators sniff out any wrong doings, and Aqua doesn't like the alternatives, an extension in a few months would certainly be not as likely as REK would like to believe.
I personally cannot be sure what Aqua is doing. There is much merit in the arbitrage speculation but it is entirely possible that they really do, just like the long term prospects. I think they have the resources and influences to command a higher level of DD than most of us private investors.
Are they pushing our price down for their advantage? Where would our price be without the millions they have provided over the past several months?
We believe what we want to believe, making adjustments in our beliefs when confronted with facts and speculations.
This is perfect Cal...thanks for the analogy...
Rebecca's own comments regarding FDA and HC to drive home my point. The FDA is open, process well defined and there is dialog = Rebecca's confidence in the FDA process and eventual positive outcome. HC is closed and bitterly frustrating. As a shareholder, I want a more open DMX that offers dialogue and communications like the FDA analogy. I don't want a "HC like " closed ended company which DMX is preceived and happens to be, at least at this moment in time. Its very frustrating. DMX can change "if there is a will, there is a way."
Rondo |
