We need a May 3:1 split not 2:1! Where's the extra 1.7b shares going?
First I'd like to say I could be wrong but I don't like the lack of information they gave us on the split. They're taking > 1/3 of the shares of *OUR* split away for other purposes, not doubling the shares & giving us half.
Anyone notice this:
"The Board of Directors' declaration of a special stock distribution (the "stock split") is subject to the condition that the stockholders approve an increase in total authorized common shares from the current limit of 1.4 billion shares to 4.5 billion. Intel's stockholders will vote on the increase at the company's annual meeting on May 21, 1997"
It there's currently 1.4b shares, and you double it in a two for 1 split, that's 2.8b shares, not the 4.5b they mention they want us to approve. (b)There's a 1.7b difference in shares that *won't be distributed to the shareholders who took the risk*/(/b) That's more than the amount of currently issued shares that they plan on holding back for executive bonuses, stock options, etc. They're taking 1/3 of our assets away from us if we do this, after we took the risk to invest & hold!
Also, if INTC's @ 180 by May which is quite reasonable for a performer like "the World's most profitable company", a 2:1 split puts the price @ 90 which is not a very fast moving tradint number. A 3:1 split would better serve the shareholders @ $180 estimate yielding $60/share price which is much more marketable. Also, if you tripple the current 1.4b shares that yields 4.2b shares. The press release talks about 4.5b shares as the new total for a 2:1 split! I think we should vote on a 3:1, which leaves .3b shares for them leftover for employee options (which they could increase by buyback if they wanted).
Anyone else think we should give up a third of our investment on a 2:1 vs 3:1 !!??
Tom |
