Gary,
I posted on the subject of the dividend a short time ago. Please let me comment again:
1] The dividend has practically zero monetary significance.
2] As to credibility, I have changed my tune from my much earlier posts. I don't know the situation. I don't know what's going on in the minds of the principals or the T.A. or how the market works with dividends and BB stocks. I strongly believe that the dividend was a tactic to discourage shorting. Unfortunately, I don't think it worked. The Articles of Incorporation, as amended, filed with NM allow the CEO the right to set the time and type (cash or stock) of payment. I recall that the dividend was declared, but I do not recall any specific statement of when it would be paid. Mr. Ben Ezra has either authorized payment and there is some technical problem in which case I am not terribly concerned OR he has not authorized payment and we have the credibility issue in front of us. If has not authorized payment, it seems he has at worst mislead people, MM's, SHORTS and LONGS, but if the action is a tactic in an effort to put an end to massive SHORTING, and if the goal is to ultimately beneift long term shareholders, then I think he is off the hook. I guess where I am coming from is a greater good approach together with Clintonese wherein a dividend is declared but payment not yet authorized. As I said earlier, I don't know enough about the entire situation. One of these days we all will, and until then I am trusting that mgmt has the company's best interests in mind. So, I see what you mean about credibility and all, but I am leaving the whole matter out of serious evaluation of the company, based upon the minuteness of the dividend, its possible strategic significance at the time of its declaration and what I believe to be the strength of character of the company's principals. And, yes, I can see the other view of credibility to all is what counts, but my rationalization has just got the better of me in this case!!
LONG on BNEZ
Jud |
