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.

Technology Stocks : INPR - Inprise to Borland (BORL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: George Lazar who wrote (2551)	4/4/1999 3:12:00 PM
From: Sam Scrutchins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5102

Ran across this post about Inprise on the Apple thread. I don't fully understand it, so I thought maybe one of you may be able to shed some light on it. Sam Message 8676596

To: George Lazar who wrote (2551)	4/4/1999 4:36:00 PM
From: Kashish King	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5102

So, they have a choice: immediately jeopardize everybody's job by buying the convertibles and leaving the company with virtually no operating cash or simply allow the conversions to take place thus saving their jobs temporarily and shafting shareholders. The issuance of shares isn't really linear, it's recursive due to the built-in reinforcement: the dilution drives the price down triggering more dilution. It's a high-gain dilution amplifier with a destructive feedback loop. It's thermal run-away that can only be quenched with a bucket of operating cash to the tune of $47,000,000 in cold, hard cash. The rhetorical question was asked: would they rather have 1 share or N shares given equal value? As if clearly they would rather have a single share. Not so fast!. If they're short the stock, you can bet your bottom dollar, if you haven't already, they would love to see more shares thus more dilution thus greater gains on their short position. Even without a short position, why should they care whether they have one share or N shares? I must add the obligatory: What am I missing?

To: George Lazar who wrote (2551)	4/4/1999 6:11:00 PM
From: Cube	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5102

George, You are exactly correct! I'm thinking that the reason Dilbert and the CFO left is that the company is now currently bankrupt. The 10Q will most certainly be delayed while the remaining employees try to find out what the company has really been doing. If they factor the damage from the convertibles, they could easily find that the true book value here is zero. Anyone on this thread knows that I have been one of the strongest critics of Dilbert, but even I never thought he would stoop to this cutting and running. Yocam is an incompetent, selfish coward. His name shall remain in my CEO rolodex as a mandatory short of the next company he slithers in to. Gee Del, I wonder why you stopped posting? Cube