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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Value Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Earl who wrote (15963)	12/27/2002 12:36:54 PM
From: TimbaBear	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78644

Don I like a lot of what you say here. However, I don't think it follows at all that there will be an IPO and would be interested to hear your thinking on why you think there would be? My reading of the plan indicates that the Articles of Incorporation will be amended and the company authorized to issue up to 215 million shares of which 15 million are to be preferred shares. 60-70 million of the newly authorized amount will be "New Common" and distributed per the plan. Since this is an existing company with existing registered shares and the new authorized amount of shares is essentially the same number as previously authorized, I don't see where an IPO would come into it. Regarding INTC options or other alternative investments, I'm sure there are many others. Apparently almost any of them would appear better to you than ACKHQ, and that's OK. We all have our comfort zones, and all who post here regularly are more in touch with their own parameters than those at most other threads I've seen. You keep talking about options when speaking of these warrants, and while I agree that there are some similarities, there are differences. The 7 year window for the warrants being one of the most important. As near as I know, there are no LEAPs that go that far out. Unless by "options" you are referring more to the ESO variety rather than the publicly traded ones, I don't know. I don't think there's anything wrong with looking at cash flow, but isn't that putting the cart before the horse when you're sitting at a table with so many jokers in the deck? No, I don't think so. This company has been in business since 1891, it's not like it's a dot com. They have a long history of earnings and paying dividends and the business they do hasn't been changed. The cash flow going forward should be quite comparable to recent years with the added debt service for the extra debt taken on as part of the settlement roughly offsetting the disappearing amount they've been writing off for increasing asbestos liabilities, so I think I'm not being unrealistic is using the financial statements to determine income (which is how I view cash flow) and thus from that to determine value to me of that income stream. Timba