To: George Dvorsky who wrote (1572 ) 7/19/1999 8:27:00 AM From: VeloSpeed Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 2419
Yes, the secondary is good, especially for us USAB shareholders. Why? Well, apart from the obvious - that it will finance USABanc.com's growth into the top internet bank in the world - it will make the company more attractive to institutions/mutual funds. Huh? (yes, after reading a few posts somewhere else, I realize that a few people don't fully grasp this concept...) Do you think a mutual fund would pick up a few hundred thousand shares of a company that only had a few million shares in the float and not enough cash to implement its big marketing plans? Doubtful.This secondary will also improve earnings. Huh? (It's only dilutive if you're profitable!) We all realize that USAB's big plans involve going in the red for the next few quarters, right? Just like all the other "internet companies", USABanc.com will have negative earnings as they implement their marketing program. So, after a negative-earnings quarter, what would you rather see? Earnings of -$1.50/share or -.75/share? (hypothetically assuming a 2PO would double the # of shares) More shares means lower loss per share. The big boys like AMZN, AOL, YHOO, Excite@Home (ATHM), eBay, and many others all had (and still have) negative earnings. It's a cost of doing business on the internet, it's a cost of reinvestment into growth, it's a cost of becoming the leader. This secondary will - among other things - increase cash, "improve" earnings, and allow institutions to get a piece of our action. Once the institutions come, the coverage follows. (think Field of Dreams!) -VeloSpeed ps - Imagine for a minute that we all had private-issue shares of USAB and the announcement was for an IPO... Or, what if USABancShares (USAB's name until mid-May) had spun-off USABanc.com in an IPO? That would be exciting, and this is even better.