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 : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: QwikSand who wrote (33845)	7/24/2000 10:10:28 AM
From: Lynn	Respond to of 64865

Dear QS: Thanks for letting me know enough shares are available for another split, at least a 2:1 split. Regarding this: >If I remember correctly, the shareholders don't authorize the >additional shares. I think they approve the split after the board >authorizes the shares, but I could be wrong about that. Sort of backwards. If enough shares are available for a split, the board just announces and does it without shareholder input [other than jumping for joy]. If enough authorized, outstanding shares are not available, the board announces a split, "Subject to shareholder approval," of an increase in the number of authorized shares to whatever number the board states. Shareholders only vote on the proposal to increase the number of shares. In regards to our SUNW, I personally would like to see a split announcement held off for a while, say until the November meeting. My earlier posting was based on the faulty assumption that we shareholders would have to vote to increase the number of shares. Regards, Lynn

To: QwikSand who wrote (33845)	7/24/2000 12:40:50 PM
From: Charles Tutt	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 64865

I'm not sure there ARE enough shares authorized to allow a 2:1 split. As I recall, the last time it split there seemed to be enough shares already authorized, but the company concluded (to my surprise, which is why I remember it) that additional authority was required; I think the reasoning involved the need to be able to cover all employee stock options in the (unlikely) event that every one of them were exercised. Lynn addressed your second paragraph, so I'll pass on that. JMHO.