To: Dale Kohler who wrote (5053 ) 2/13/1998 2:49:00 PM From: Linda Kaplan Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 9695
Dale, One of the facts inherent in owning warrants is that the company does have the capability of changing their terms. When you talk about the risk of warrant holding, you operate on the assumption that if they aren't in the money at expiration they expire worthless. That isn't always the case because of the fact that warrants differ from options in the sense that the company has the authority to make changes in their terms. In another of your posts, number 5051, you speculate that Dr. Martinez didn't want to extend the warrants but extended them against his will, and did so very late as an indication of his distaste for the company's decision. There are other more plausible explanations, in my view. It seems that extending warrants is something that must be done in a precise way to meet the legal standards. It's possible the company's attorneys had no experience with this, and needed to do some research about how to do it and how to properly word the announcement. Why continue to decry a decision that has been made? In another post, 5070, you say it's sad when proponents of extension have to point out three cent moves in the stock as proof that the market approves the decision to extend. Dale, stockholders of stocks that haven't been doing well tend to take hope in trivial moves. The fact is that the stock and the warrants have moved up quite a bit more than three cents since the extension. I wouldn't guarantee that's entirely because of the extension, but what if it is? I myself have more faith in the company because of the extension. I'm more likely to buy more stock, and warrants, too. I think the extension indicates that the company has faith in itself. I think it's a proud thing that they extended the warrants. So we both can draw opposite conclusions about the motivation of a single piece of behavior. That's expectable. :-) Linda