"those funds MUST have been secured by the IPO." Hawaii, companies buy back bond issues to enter into new, higher or better term financing arrangements all the time. I realize from your prior postings that you are not well versed in these types of arrangements. However, an IPO would not be used to secure a $150 million dollar credit facility. An IPO is itself a means of securing funding for the new company, and often for the parent as well.
If you said that the bonds were redeemed to allow IDTC to do an IPO, that's a totally different issue and may well be the case. Could an IPO be part of the plans and pre-negotiated with other entities? Sure. And they have to get the old bonds out of the way. Could it be simply that they anticipate needing a larger credit facility for expansion of current businesses, including ISP and Net2Phone? I think so.
Now I know from experience with you that if they announce an IPO you'll misquote me and say that I didn't believe there was any chance for an IPO. Well, I still say it's 50-50. Tomorrow could be a big day for announcement. I'd certainly like to get whatever their plans are out in the open. Realize that Softbank often invests in companies without new IPO's in the works. Realize, too, that we haven't heard anymore since the CBS Marketwatch reporter claimed to have heard from an insider that Softbank was considering investing.
"The only possible reason Softbank might not be part of the deal would be if IDT found a better partner..." Oh, I didn't know that. What's your source for this gem? So it couldn't be because Softbank did some DD and decided 1)there was too much competition, or 2) the product wasn't as good as they thought, 3) they didn't get the terms they wanted, 4) IDT decided they don't need Softbank owning 20 - 30% of the company, or 5) God forbid, Softbank found a better company to invest in.
What annoys me about your posts is the frequent use of terms like "only possible reason", "MUST have been...", and etc. I'm sure you're aware of the other side of every story, but you know there are gullible readers who think you must know what you're talking about.
You have some very good comments to make, and I have learned from some of your research (even if you get it from Yahoo :>). I think you do yourself a diservice by being so adamant about every position, even when it's a far from certain possibility.
You're wrong about me trying hard to find something negative to say. Right now I'm long on the stock. This will be my 3rd flip. I couldn't resist the dip it took today. After flipping the stock 3 or 4 times I'll probably do better than long term holders. That's a good way to play a stock with so much uncertainty.
And if they come out with early news, I might even participate in an appreciation. Won't hold it past Monday, though.
Regards, Hawaii - take some of that stuff NASDAQ and blankmind are on. You could use some mellowing out.
David |
