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.

Non-Tech : Littlefield Corporation (LTFD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SE who wrote (5459)	12/11/1997 11:28:00 PM
From: DJB	Respond to of 10368

Scott, I think you have said it exactly right in your post. Never thought I would agree with a Packer fan!!! GO BEARS GO LOL Dennis

To: SE who wrote (5459)	12/12/1997 1:37:00 AM
From: Que	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10368

>>No matter when, the arbs and shorters step in especially on a company with a small float and drive the price down. Wait 3 months or 6 months, the price would have been hit just as hard, only from a higher base is all. << Scott, I don't completely agree. First of all, there would be a completely different dynamic to the market if we were starting from a higher base: it would be much more difficult to squeeze the price down near to the strike price with a history of price support at twice that level - and with this extra breathing room, warrant holders would have been less inclined to panick. When the warrants were called we had only recently moved from the $7 region. Second, time is an issue. Given the small float, there is a limit to how many warrants the market can digest in a given period of time. If we had a call period of 90 days as management had previously suggested would be the case, this call could have been conducted in a more orderly fashion - given that the number of warrants is 2 1/2 times the float, there were just too few trading days in the call period for the natural stream of buyers to support the call. That being said, I don't blame management for how things went. At the time the call decision was made they had no way of knowing that troubles in Asia would bring turmoil to US markets. This situation is the product of bad luck and timing as much as anything else. However, I do beleive that some positive move on the part of management to support a successful call would be wise. It is my understanding that a stock purchase does not require SEC filing - this comes under the heading of 'Treasury Stock - purchase and sales' on a quarterly or yearly filing - after the fact. A purchase now followed by resale over the next few months would go a long way towards releasing some of the deadline pressure that could endanger this call - and it is imperative that this call be carried off successfully. The fact is that many warrant holders are stock holders as well. And if many warrant holders feel that they have been sacrificed: that would be bad for stockholder and public relations. Don't get me wrong, warrant holders are responsible for their own mistakes - but a company at BNGO's stage of development must pay attention to maintaining a posative relationship with investors. L.L. & P.