|
Glen -- although I haven't seen the proxy yet, it's clear from reading messages on this board that Osicom is not letting shareholders know what these additional shares are earmarked for. We all know that an increase of authorized shares can be either good or bad for shareholders, depending on how they are used. On December 1, someone on this board asked David Pawlak to comment on the pros and cons of authorizing additional shares. His response (message #3200) was somewhat disingenuous -- although he listed "Pros" and "Cons", all of the "Cons" he presented were actually points in favor of authorizing a share increase, as were the ""Pros." So actually, he didn't list any "Cons." He later said that the items on this proxy (obviously including the share increase) were "routine", which is a long stretch, don't you think? The request for a 150 percent increase in authorized shares is clearly not routine. I wrote to Herb Greenberg, business columnist for the SF Chronicle, about the possible downside of voting for an 150 percent increase in authoized shares. His response is published on the front page of today's business section: " The worst thing that could happen is that the shares would eventually be sold to the public as part of a secondary stock offering. That could dilute your investment. Two better reasons for boosting the number of authorized shares are for splitting the stock and making acquisitions. Be especially leery of any company that wants to boost authorized shares without giving a reason. That's akin to asking for a blank check." |
