I'm afraid the answers to my questions about the Cenco acquisition are not in the document from which I cut and pasted. That is why I asked the questions.
As far as PLR choosing to put on their web site what they wish, that of course is so. I was made to understand, however, that such disclosure was a requirement. Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect. As Ditchdigger has made such a case elsewhere for disclosure, I find it curious, at best, as to his lack of concern for PLR's non-disclosure. It would appear there are certain facts that matter a great deal to him in relation to stocks he states he does not presently own, but the identical facts are seemingly unknown to him for stocks he apparently "cares" about. Rather odd double standard.
I sense displeasure in my post and the questions posed. As of yet, no one has provided any answers. Perhaps Ditchdigger, and several threads here on SI, would be better served if he stuck to those questions on his "own" thread(s), as opposed to constantly berating other's. He has, in fact, called it game playing except when he himself is doing this. In all seriousness, it is NOT a game. Purposely posting innuendo and totally inappropriate "facts" is hurtful to companies, their stock and their shareholders. If you are his friend, perhaps you can speak with him about the impact of such behavior. "Reason" doesn't appear to have meaning to him when coming from someone whom he does not consider a friend. |
