Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Global Crossing - GX (formerly GBLX) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JDN who wrote (5771)	4/24/2000 11:07:00 AM
From: Big Bucks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15615

JDN, ALL This is a BAD DEAL for stockholders IMO. How does increasing the number of shares by 4x help increase shareholder value. The only ones who win here are management. This move in effect could remove GBLX as a takeover candidate if the proxy vote passes, which reduces it's intrinsic value, IMO. Vote NO!!! JMO, BB

To: JDN who wrote (5771)	4/24/2000 11:48:00 AM
From: Big Bucks	Respond to of 15615

JDN, My issue is with the number of shares that the board wants to print. 4.5 BILLION shares is an extreme amount for a company that has negative earnings going forward. Where is the value added?? Even if the company "splits" by forming Global Centers and Global Crossing as separate entities that is 2.25 BILLION shares in the float of each company. If there were outstanding earnings and immediate profit potential, I might not be so concerned, but there isn't. This action just dillutes shareholder value, IMO. It also makes it less likely that another company might want to buy out GBLX as an entity for an acceptable profit return on my investment. Management is suppose to insure shareholder value and have the interests of shareholders as 1st priority. This action seems to have the interests of management and the board as 1st priority, IMO. Why is it necessary to have additional shares available for management "incentive" they already own 33% of the company and are making some outrageous salaries as was posted a few weeks ago. Outrageous, IMO. Just my opinion, give me a compelling postive argument, anyone, PLEASE. BB