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: JakeSki who wrote (5999)	12/26/1997 3:08:00 AM
From: jimmy	Respond to of 10368

George, if you truly believe that the effects would have been the same, no matter how management handled the warrant call, then I deserve to be shot for being stupid enough to argue that point with you. you said: Maybe I need to have all consequences of the warrant call enumerated for me again - I just don't see why it was that bad a decision. After all, how could management know that a whole bunch of warrant holders weren't in a position, or had no intention, to convert? and you responded to Shawn's comment: >> knowing that this undue time pressure would in all likelihood >> cause the warrants and common stock to tank is inexcusable. It would have tanked no matter when the warrant was called.

To: JakeSki who wrote (5999)	12/26/1997 10:34:00 AM
From: Shawn Erskine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10368

George, My comment, " judging by the time of your post, I have to assume you just got back from a Christmas party and probably had a few too many eggnogs," was my polite way of trying to excuse your "fuzzy-headed" thinking concerning the rights of warrant holders. Just like "loyal" stockholders, the warrant holders "had" the right to honesty from management. Kind of makes me wonder about the integrity of management when they say," the warrant call will be over a 3 to 6 month period" and then proceed to jam a 30 day warrant call period on the warrant holders. Just for the record, it was not the "loyal" stockholders who put new capital into BNGO, it was those " damn, go to hell" warrant holders. Of course OUR management felt compelled to punish both groups by their inept judgement. Good management would have done "everything" to get "all" the warrants converted, maybe even use a little creative thinking like offering anyone who would convert their warrants before Dec.23, 1997 another warrant convertable at $15.00 or $20.00 until Dec. 31,1999. Good management would have had a plan to "get all the cash," so that the company can grow and reward the "loyal" stockholders. Warrants, when used properly, are the easiest way for the managements of small companies to get capital. Why did OUR management treat the warrant holders so disgracefully and in the process injure both warrant and stockholders? Is OUR management so inept that they had no plan for the conversion of the warrants other than the fiasco we have witnessed or were they just "hell bent" on destroying their creditably. George, just for the record, I have lost a lot more money on my "loyal" stockholder position than I have lost on my " speculative-you have no rights, go to hell" warrant position. OUR management is fair, they punished everyone. With all due respect of course. Shawn