"I don't understand why you guys are interested so much talking about ex-date, record date, and the dividend payment date"
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm doing it simply because it's hilarious to watch ignorant, boneheaded blowhards show their true colors. In my very first post on this board, I explained how the distribution process is going to work then ended by saying "Experience shows that even when presented with the facts, a significant percentage of Yahoo message board posters will make complete fools of themselves denying reality. So let the denying begin ... "
They have not disappointed.
You're sure slow on the uptake, aren't you, mailbotte?
"Maybe I should remember the saying... "the luck is for the dummies""
Not only should you remember it, you should also hope it applies to you.
"divvy of $1.75 is less than 25% of the ops, $7.74"
It wasn't under 25% as of the declaration date, the time at which the determination for qualification is made.
Do you really believe that the 25% threshold is a moving target? That the stock exchange would change the ex-date every day that it dipped below 25% or jumped above it? What if it was below 25% up until the 6th, then went above it? Do you honestly think they'd change the ex-date from the 9th to the 31st after the close of trading on the 6th?
Hint: No, it doesn't work that way.
"if dividend is 25% or more, then the ex date is set to one day after payment"
"Of course in our case dividend is less than 25%, thus we are using "regular" rules"
No on both counts. The distribution is $1.75. The price at the time of declaration was $6.80. I sent a telegram to MIT and they calculated the distribution to be 25.7352941% of the stock's price as of the declaration. I sent them another telegram and they confirmed my suspicion that 25.7352941% is in fact more than 25%.
What percentage did you come up with?
"I expect a PR from Pozen clearing up the matter."
It would be nice, but don't count on it. I've seen that happen less than half the time.
"The 25% rule does apply and you only have to be a shareholder of record 3 days before December 31"
Not quite. Forget the "shareholder of record" phrase. You need own the stock only one day before the ex-date of the 31st. Ex-dividend dates are real-time dates. The three day settlement does not apply to ex-dates. Buy the stock before the ex-date, even one day before, and get the distribution. Buy on or after the ex-date, don't get the distribution.
"If you sell your stock between the 9th and 3 business days before Dec 31"
Not 3 business days before the 31st; the 30th.
"you will be paid the disbursement but have to give it to the shareholder on record as of the 31th"
Again, forget "shareholder of record." If you buy the stock on the 30th, and hold until the next day, you'll get the distribution, but you won't be a shareholder of record until January 3rd.
df108g, if you'd do a google search for "dividend date faq" (including the quotation marks) and go to the first result, you'll have everything spelled out for just about every dividend situation. It explains every dividend date question you can think of. I haven't seen it in a while but I think it also covers the due bill process.
cruisecontrol427, you sure talk big for a guy who doesn't know what he's talking about. From the website Understanding Dividend Dates: "The dividend is paid to all shareholders of record first because that is the only information the company has on who is eligible for the dividend. The due bills are then executed by the stock brokerages of the buyers and sellers during the due bill period. The company does not participate in the due bill process."
That clearly explains why the company's press release says the distribution will be paid to shareholders of record as of the 11th, yet you continue to fail to explain why most brokerage houses are listing the ex-date as the 31st.
"I'm going to laugh my butt off"
Would that be before or after you remove your head from it?
Since philsie1 is going to pretend he's not going to read my reply, this is for anyone stupid enough to believe his claim that wikipedia proves him right. He says, " Anyone can google "wiki ex-dividend" and see that what I said is correct."
Gee, philsie1, guess what you and your giant, superior brain missed at that wikipedia entry: The very last line. The very last line of wikipedia's explanation of ex-dividend dates says: ""These rules are different for special dividends over 25%. See that article for details."
Nice going, blockhead. You "proof" proves you're wrong.
"The key for me was I thought the price was going down by $1.75 next week and in reality it isn't"
Don't be so sure. I've seen it happen before in similar situations, but of course because it was purely through investor confusion, the price always zooms back up in a very short time as astute investors recognize the boneheaded behavior of the ignorant. But while there has been an impressively large showing of ignorant investors on this board, don't count on there being enough of them to cause the price to drop that much next week.
"Then why buy 3 days before the record date as that date is meaningless."
The record date is not meaningless. I've explained that here twice at least. It's quite meaningful for the company.
"If what you're saying is true then the deadline to buy the stock on Friday means nothing."
There has never been a deadline to buy the stock by Friday. That would apply only if the ex-date was the 9th, which doesn't seem to be the case, does it?
"If you want to just buy the stock just to collect the dividend why tie up your money for 3 more weeks."
The better question is: Why buy the stock just to collect the dividend?
"The whole thing makes no sense unless the attorneys for Pozen are wrong"
The whole thing will never make sense to you because you can't get over the idea of the ex-date being after the record date. The attorneys are not wrong. They never claimed the ex-date is the 9th. You didn't talk to the attorneys, you talked to IR. The chances that Pozen's IR people understand the 25% rule are no better than the chances that you'll ever understand it.
"I think following is right"
Some of it is, some of it isn't.
"Record Date: December, 11th"
"Payment Date: December, 30th, for all shareholders which are recorded at Record Date"
"Ex-Divi Date (and first trading with reduced share price): December, 12th"
Absolutely not. Under no circumstances would the ex-date be the 12th. If this follows normal dividend rules, the ex-date will be the 9th. If it follows the 25% rule, which looks likely, the ex-date will be the 31st.
"only the above "sequence" makes sense"
Actually, no it doesn't. Thanks for trying, though.
Some brokers transfer the funds on the due bill redemption date, some don't. Some brokers are able to explain the process, some aren't.
Everything the company said in its press release announcing the distribution is true but it was incomplete, not mentioning the due bill process. That's the way almost every company that issues a distribution subject to the 25% rule announces it. I've seen in only rare occasions where a company explained it thoroughly (and still the blockheads on the message boards didn't understand it). It seems that in the last couple years a few companies have, apparently under an avalanche of complaints from shareholders, issued follow-up press releases noting that anyone who sells their shares before the (deferred) ex-date is also selling their right to the distribution, but that seems to only confuse message board blockheads even further. Congratulations for not being one of them, flyaway393!
I know how this works because I've been through it, studied the rules and watched it play out many, many times. I've sold before the deferred ex-date and have had the funds deposited in my account on the payment and then withdrawn days later, to be forwarded to the rightful owner. The process always works, but like I said before, the funds are often not forwarded by the due bill redemption date like they're supposed to.
IF the ex-date turns out to be the 31st, then that's the way it's going to work.
It remains to be seen if the ex-date is the 9th or the 31st. Most outlets are reporting it to be the 31st, and the distribution does seem to fit the 25% rule, so it looks like it will be ex on the 31st.
"IF Dec 31st is really the ex-div date THEN those owning shares on record date Dec 11th will receive the dividend"
"probably early January"
Well, the payment date is the 30th, so they're supposed to be paid on the 30th.
"BUT if they sell before Dec 31st then the dividend that was to be credited to their account will automatically be transferred to the buyer of those shares"
"not sure how or even if the seller's account will reflect the receipt of ..."
The seller's account will be credited with the money the same as with any other dividend.
"or transfer to but this process is known as "due bill"
"this is how it was explained to me by broker"
And he is correct.
Here are some further details (that I've explained on this board several other times in the past couple weeks, to no end of derision and name-calling). IF the ex-date is the 31st, then all shares traded beginning at the open on the 9th, THROUGH the end of trading on the 30th, will have due bills attached. A due bill is an obligation of the seller to forward the $1.75 to to buyer. On the payment date of the 30th, the due bill becomes effective and is treated much like a regular stock trade, meaning it has three business days to settle. The distribution is forwarded to the rightful owner on the due bill redemption date, which is the settlement date of the due bill transaction. So, in this case, should the ex-date be the 31st, the due bill redemption date is January 3rd. That's when buyers from 12-9 through 12-30 should get the distribution. But in practice, it often takes several days longer. I have no idea why. Broker confusion is my best guess.
Some brokers note on the trade confirmations that due bills are attached, some don't. To be continued....
"if that is the case, there is no need for record date"
Yes, there is. I've explained the reason for the record date twice already.
"Maybe today it is the 9th and we did not know about that"
At least you have the conviction of your confusion.
"Some time you agreed with others about the ex-date on 11th"
This is a perfect example of you not paying attention. About the 11th, I have only agreed that it is the record date. I have never said the 11th is the ex-date. That's because it's the RECORD DATE. Record date and ex-date are not the same thing and never fall on the same day.
As for the rest of your confusion, well, that's probably just a lifestyle.
So, you never explain why the NASDAQ and the CBOE say the ex-date is the 31st because you can read?
And that makes sense to you?
"Because I know better. ok?"
No, you don't. And you prove that every time you post.