No - Not the proxy vote itself - that's why there
Post# of 96891
Posted On: 10/30/2015 11:26:39 AM
No - Not the proxy vote itself - that's why there may be lots of confusion - if there is only 100,000 additional shares the company might blow it off - If it is double the issued number of shares they have a problem.
The event that forces the market players to call in their shorts has to be bigger. Like a merger.
Here, the belief is that spinning off NTGL to shareholders of record would be a big enough transaction to force market players to call in their short positions. Because NTEK would only be expected to spin to the same number of shares they had actually issued.
That makes sense to me, but if it was so easy then companies in short trouble would create spin-off candidates solely for the purpose of spinning and causing the shorts headaches.
Respected Commentators on this board are pretty certain that a NTGL spinoff gets the job done. The problem here is that the accounting is done as of last February. Maybe NTEK cant be very forcefull against shorts when it is NTEK that didn't get the job done.
I have pondered whether or not this upcoming vote will be a request that allows the company to void the Feb date and use a current date. I know that older shareholders would be disadvantaged, but moving to a current date might have a much more significant effect on the current share value of NTEK itself which would be a greater monetary benefit to all SH, including the older SH, many of whom have continued to buy NTEK shares along the way.
The event that forces the market players to call in their shorts has to be bigger. Like a merger.
Here, the belief is that spinning off NTGL to shareholders of record would be a big enough transaction to force market players to call in their short positions. Because NTEK would only be expected to spin to the same number of shares they had actually issued.
That makes sense to me, but if it was so easy then companies in short trouble would create spin-off candidates solely for the purpose of spinning and causing the shorts headaches.
Respected Commentators on this board are pretty certain that a NTGL spinoff gets the job done. The problem here is that the accounting is done as of last February. Maybe NTEK cant be very forcefull against shorts when it is NTEK that didn't get the job done.
I have pondered whether or not this upcoming vote will be a request that allows the company to void the Feb date and use a current date. I know that older shareholders would be disadvantaged, but moving to a current date might have a much more significant effect on the current share value of NTEK itself which would be a greater monetary benefit to all SH, including the older SH, many of whom have continued to buy NTEK shares along the way.
(0)
(0)