Tmacker, I feel your pain. I think this encapsulates the argument:
Yieldseeker writes: "There is no reason that any shareholder needs to vote with the majority."
This assumes one knows where the majority is, assumes that all the institutions are voting the same way, and assumes that this won't be a close vote. As a previous post pointed out, not even all the "insiders" are voting the same way. As I said before, if you aren't sure, just don't vote. It's that simple. Voting "no" in the hope that somebody will think for you is moronic and might have very bad consequences for those of us who actually invested in this company.
Your position of voting no and let the institutions decide had some merit. However, now I feel you may have an alternative motive since you continue to press the point.
PL would be the most knowledgeable of the institutions after they gained inside knowledge during their investigation. PL has stated they will vote yes. Why would we now take a risk that the vote doesn't win? Who, other than insiders we don't trust, would have better information then PL.
If your purpose was simply to allow those with the most knowledge to determine the best course of action, why haven't you thrown your full support behind PL and push for a yes vote?
PL is definitely the most knowledgable of the institutions. Based on PL's position what is your reason for not pushing for a yes vote?
Your position should have changed if your orginal postings were really motivated toward the best decision.
PL's stance and the fact that they didn't dump their stock indicates they believe this is the best course of action.
Unfortunately, I have no incontrovertible investment analysis. Considering that I once thought PZN to be a good buy, you should look pretty critically at any investment that I like.
Also, I probably have looked at PZN more thoroughly than anything else, simply because this active board has held my attention.
In REITs I like HCN. As a possible turnaround with an internet potential, I like JCP. For technology at a reasonable price, I like SYMC. However, I haven't looked at any of these as thoroughly as I should. I would appreciate any critical feedback you may have on these stocks. Perhaps you can save me some money!
You say you will ignore the "usual helping of sanctimony", but I note that did not stop you from throwing out your usual insult (the term, "moronic").
You seem to fear that some of the institutions will vote no. If this turns out to be a close vote, that would show that a lot of shareholders do not consider this a simple choice between the management proposal and bankruptcy. Either way, I will not be management's rubber stamp.
Yieldseeker writes: "If this turns out to be a close vote, that would show that a lot of shareholders do not consider this a simple choice between the management proposal and bankruptcy. Either way, I will not be management's rubber stamp."
I'm not asking you to, but you're as always, making assumptions that the institutions will vote as a monolithic block. If this is a close vote and we go into BK because people voted "no" not because they feel negative about the proposal, but because they're simply ignorant, then we all lose (or at least those of us with shares).
Since you like to question motives, I'm really curious as to the preference of voting no over simply not voting. If someone doesn't know, then they simply shouldn't vote. Voting no out of ignorance is MORONIC. There, you got a "bad" word. Now you can dodge the issue again and focus on that.