Hi, Pied. Good to hear from you. I think I mostly answered your questions.
Very generally speaking. . . .
The bottom line is we need to know the true motivation of the company before determining whether or not this is good. From the speculators perspective, it is terrible. This stock had a good history of exploding periodically. Those who time it can do well. Going private takes out all such speculation. It really makes it into a boring play, dependent upon the whims of the company, as approved by shareholders.
There is a chance shareholders could get treated better, but no promises. I like the idea of reforming, but as old as the principals are, I would only give it about a 1 in 5 chance of being possible. I think they are mostly "comfortable" with the way things are. . . and since greed is what drives such aggressive equity plays, I'm not holding my breath. They just don't seem the type.
If it is as they say, and they just want to double their earnings by cutting out the filing obligations. . . then none of this is for the benefit of shareholders per se. . . but to merely improve the company bottom line. . . which is likely tied to bonuses, etc. for principals. . . again leaving out shareholders.
So to better answer your question, if they were going to make an aggressive equity play, it would be far better for shareholders and speculators alike. If not, then I can't think of a reason to play this stock on speculation any more. As for shareholders, once the company goes private. . you truly are a partner. . . with all the associated headaches, joys, doubts and uncertainties of ownership.
Hope that helps some. . .
Take care, Pied. . .
Rande Is |
