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: Dale Baker who wrote (16120)	1/9/2003 10:15:42 AM
From: Bob Rudd	Respond to of 78751

Dale: I agree the language contains many qualifiers, but isn't that appropriate given that the dividend tax provision is 'proposed' and will probably be modified or eliminated during the legislative process? I looked at ACAS 10-k and it appears that they are structured to pass thru pre-tax income and as such would not recieve any benefit from a proposal designed to eliminate double taxation...so the analyst quoted in the peice was likely correct on that. [Look under the section entitled 'The Company’s Operations as a BDC and RIC']. While Rocker owns 39k of TSCM's 23.6mm shares, I doubt that makes him HG's 'boss' rather I would say Rocker assoc. Cohodes is a source and strong influence...but not to the degree that analysts were influenced by multi-mm$ bonus payouts from IB interests. Nevertheless, I would expect that HG sees his mission to point out red flags and negative issues and that's what he was doing in the article...and I think it does holders and non-holders a service to have it pointed out that there's little liklihood that the ALD/ACAS dividends would be tax free...thus one should not increase positions based on the false premise that they would be tax free.