What is your point Lee?
Where is the substance in your argument? What is your view and your reasoning with regard to what we shareholders should do in response to the proxy solicitation of management? Why waste a post on a frivolous issue that required you to distort? I ask this because, despite the normal combativeness of this thread, we now need a time out to lay on the table some substance and to canvass opinions of the voting shareholders. You eschewed any of that.
You are responding to a post of mine where I said I do not work in any capacity for CCEE, will not be paid by it and if I I was the person doing the outside proxy solicitation, it would ME who would pay the costs, personally.
Next, it is obvious that of all of management's proposals, I urge a "NO" vote, with the lone exception of the reverse split.
In your eyes do you think management would declare victory if everything was defeated except the authorization for a reverse split? Why did they bother to print up that cumbersome proxy solicitation and to undertake proposing the other items that infuriated, and got the attention of the otherwise sleepy shareholders if all management really wanted (according to your implied argument) was the one proposal that I advocate?
What is your opinion about the price and ability to properly trade stock in CCEE if it does not do a reverse split, the stock stays at the 70 cent to 80 cent price, and CCEE is delisted by NASDAQ--and sent to the unsupervised wild west known as the pink sheets? If you did not sell your shares before that happened do you think you would be better off with say 10,000 shares of CCEE trading at some price under a dollar(assuming no reverse split) on a bulletin board run by a few tiny stock brokers; or assuming a 1:2 split, having 5,0000 shares trading at over a dollar on NASDAQ?
If you have had good luck with bulletin board stocks, I suppose you oppose the reverse split on the grounds that even though it is a directly proportionate, across-the-board reduction, there is a mystery factor that will depress the stock.
I see the other side of the coin. I agree 100% with what Pugs argued in his recent post: There is no rational way the company can justify simultaneously, a reverse split along with a massive dilution. That is precisely my point. A reverse split is needed, not because CCEE internally decided it would be a good idea, but rather, because NASDAQ said if a stock does not trade over a dollar, it will be delisted and banished to the pink sheet bulletin board. I believe that the bulletin board is an invitation for manipulation of the grossest kind, and I think that this stock's price is so low that if there are any positive events the stock will reach a level that will make me forget about the split. Also, every major stock has institutional owners. Due to price limitations on what institutions can buy, the split is more likely to attract such ownership along with the stability it brings.
I am a lawyer, not a stock broker nor an expert in finance. I am basing my opinion concerning the split on what I have read as an investor and what my brokers and clients have taught me over the years. As I said before, I invite substantive, critical analysis of my opinions from anyone who has a better knowledge base than I (which to my knowledge excludes only Rick for a certainty).
I got a kick out of one thing Rick said " Denial of
all (i.e. no votes on all 15) forces them to put up or fold by March."
FOLD? what investor who spent hard earned money would want CCEE to FOLD? On the contrary, the shareholders should want to insure that in March, regardless of whether the market is still a bull, is not in a retrenchment or is not annoyed at CCEE (for good or irrational reasons) that the stock is still traded on NASDAQ. Rick of course, prays for CCEE to fold! |
