mike,
<Creaf must do what is right for creative...>
Which of course is us. I think what is right for the company is too buy as many shares for as cheaply as possible. I also believe that this is meant to be an ongoing process including through all of next year. I also think/hope that $17-20 will be lower than the average price they will pay for shares next year. This is much closer to a bottom than the top if the fundamentals remain intact. I say buy "low", now, especially when it looks like you have more money than you can spend before year's end. Waiting in anticipation for even lower prices is not in the my term long interest, especially if the stock starts going up. I want shares retired. Every time a share gets retired, I own a little more of this company.
If we were talking about buying more shares at 25 then I might agree. But at 17 I think they should be buying all they can.
<If creative drove the price up during the month higher than the perceived market value, the stock would likely fall back down.>
This is a very key point and I'm glad you mentioned it. The "perceived market value" may very well change for the better if investors saw CREAF begin to rally towards more reasonable valuation. I never advocated buying shares just to artificially drive up the price to some unreasonable value. I think if the stocks starts going up investors, other than CREAF, will be interested.
<Creative imo wants the stock to price itself, maybe the qtr is a blowout, why would creative buy shares if they think the stock will go up?>
I'm not sure if you are being serious but I will assume you are. The idea is to "buy low". Most investors (and CREAF is no different) want to buy stocks because "they think the stock will go up". If you think the stock is going up because of a blowout quarter, you would buy all you could get now. Why would they want to buy after the price is higher.
This is my opinion in a nutshell: if the year ends and CREAF is below $20 and CREAF did not spend all of their 1998 authority, I will consider this irresponsible and not in the best long term interest of the shareholders, at least this one. In 1999 they can use their authority more casually and defensively, but the stock remains undervalued enough to warrant spending all of 1998's authority if they can at a reasonable valuation.
My 2 cents,
FF |
