To: I. N. Vester who wrote (9294 ) 3/14/1999 9:01:00 AM From: Zeev Hed Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 27311
I.N. where the "h**l" do you come up with the conclusion that I insinuate any Dawson dishonesty? Look my friend, I might be ignorant as to VLNC future prospects, but I am not stupid. In cases (other companies I have criticized on these threads in the last two years) where ample management dishonesty could be demonstrated, I refused to make such implications, I do not need to be dragged into libel suits. All I stated is from VLNC documents, the exercise of of options on close to a million shares Dawson last year was carried out with a non recourse note from VLNC. That means that if Dawson wants to walk away, he yields the stock (and is fully liable for interest accrued). There is nothing dishonest with a businessman borrowing funds for an investment, it is done all the time. But you should differentiate between Dawson's financial commitment to the stock (a non recourse note) and some on this thread that are truly committed and for whom the failure of VLNC would mean a financial catastrophe that will take them years to recover from. I would not be surprised if you found that the relative commitment of some of the bulls here to VLNC is ten times greater than that of Dawson, exactly for the reasons you cite, if VLNC does not fly, Dawson's life style will not change an iota, because he has such other vast holdings (and the same of course applies to Berg, Bert and Shugart). Some of our most ardent bulls, however, have tied most of their assets to the success of this enterprise, and it is for them that I worry, not the big fat guys for which the involvement with VLNC is not even 10% of their assets. Zeev