Hmm...are there actual people who enter into sell decisions based on the potential conflict in Syria? I thought that only happened to more-liquid stocks that have algos trading based on headlines/keywords, etc?
You wrote: "fine, so long as they don't go into debt, and the purchase is accretive to the bottom line."
Well, yes, I think that is consistent with the criteria laid out in the press release (and I hope that a transaction will actually be substantially stronger than that, not expending more than 50% of the cash reserve, and not issuing any paper (I think that the MNDO paper is worth far more than its implied value right now))
My read of the acquisition statement in the recent earnings announcement was that MNDO was looking for an acquisition that would have an impact like acquiring Sentori, the 2005 acquisition referenced in the announcement. MNDO has also had other acquisitions that have not worked out so well. I assume they do not want to spend money repeating such experiences. I have certainly made my view obvious in earlier posts that I believe the success of the Sentori acquisition has everything to do with the Sales Exec they acquired as part of that deal. For Sentori, it was acquisition of a resource skill they did not otherwise have, with a name in the market they could leverage for a multi-year transition period. More traditional reasons to do an acquisition might be acquisition of a market or acquisition of a technology.
I would expect an acquisition that appears to gain MNDO expertise in a new market area, along with the resources in place to sell into that area would be viewed as a positive, especially if it were clear that leveraging MNDO's inexpensive development resources could improve their penetration and profitability.