SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Corel Corp. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Daniel Chisholm who wrote (9298)6/6/2000 10:40:00 AM
From: Kashish King  Respond to of 9798
 
If you attribute a fair value to CORL in the neighbourhood of (say) C$2, then this deal has not diluted per-share value, because it has resulted in more than C$2 of value (in the form of cold hard cash, no less) being injected into the company for each new share being created.

This is money they need to pay short-term debts and above all, to pay their employees. This money keeps the phones operating and the lights burning. It's like selling part ownership of your home to raise money to pay the mortgage. That cash is a noise-level infusion that will only stave off the inevitable. Insofar as nobody would give Corel a loan at any rate, this was there only choice. Sad comment on Corel's management but no surprise.

I think you'll see CORL sales continue to plunge (I think they're the only shrinking re-seller of re-packaged Linux) and the stock will re-test the 52 Week low. I can't really think of a more badly run public company or one which has a worse reputation for being dishonest with shareholders and securities analysts. That's why they are generally ignored or laughed at when they make public comments. Then again I may be wrong. Maybe "everything is perfect" as Cowpland is saying and Corel will actually execute. Cowpland will make naive, child-like comments then concoct a new angle when those claims are discovered to be worthless hype. I see no reason to expect anything different this time around.



To: Daniel Chisholm who wrote (9298)6/7/2000 9:14:00 AM
From: eyewatch  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 9798
 
NotYet.
globeinvestor.com