You would figure by now that I do not own, have never owned, nor would I ever think of owning SinkHole shares. Therefore, I do not, nor would I, have the opportunity to vote for or against anything the company proposes. I simply stated how I would be inclined to vote IF the occasion arose.
Well actually the agreement tells you all that, guy. Remember the first amendment to the deal? All it did was add the discussion about how the CFO and General Counsel had been negotiating for a big bonus if and when the deal closes. All of these discussions were going on while investors, the SEC and the regulators were awaiting the delayed financial reports including the year-end numbers (10-K) and the first quarter's results. Who cares where the money is coming from? It belongs to the shareholders.
Given how badly management has performed over the past year, including the CFO, I would have gladly voted "No!" on #2, the authorization for bonus compensation for certain memebers of mgt. The CFO and general counsel will each walk away with over one million of your dollars.
I read Boo-Fays-Proct-Ologist's article on TSLA and I can agree he has a valid point. But he gets there for all of the wrong reasons. Most of the 125 comments he cites are from a very small number of respondents, some posting multiples and multiples of times. And of course he rudely dismisses those that disagree with his conclusion.
His conclusion lacks the rigor of good research. Instead he seems to believe that all stocks will revert to the mean (his interpretation of his hero's description of "intrinsic value"), and in so doing ignores changes in economic fundamentals that may be having an impact either on actual earnings performance or investors' perceptions of future growth prospects. That is consistent with his view on the SinkHole in which he ignores completely the company's rapidly deteriorating finances and the potential that those controlling ACP and its related entities will actually do something fiscally responsible for their stakeholders.
He draws nice pictures and charts and compiles tables that foot and tie, but he does not seem to understand what he is looking at.
On a separate issue, the point has been made that ACP's immediate owner is the Karfarkle Trust, which is true. However, the trust and its trustees and ACP's Board of Directors have a fiduciary duty to other stakeholders including existing clients that do not wish to have their reinsurer's balance sheet (and therefore claims paying ability) weakened by the acquisition of a property of such questionable finances as the SinkHole.
Zacks does not think. It uses the simplest of black-box formulas, basing its ratings on forward earnings estimates from Street analysts. It is an okay indicator (but not the only one you should use) when you are looking at a fairly stable and well-followed company. The model falls apart when you are talking about a failing company that is followed by only one analyst -- the SinkHole story.
At one time, Zacks used to provide a really good service to the Street by compiling earnings estimates from the various analysts and then calculating the consensus figure. But other outlets can do this so Zacks is trying to remain relevant by coming up with a way to use the estimate data. By all appearances, a high school sophomore adds the words to fill out the ratings indications.
Why should anyone read anything that you have written about anything? You have demonstrated here that you know next to nothing. So you have 125 comments. That is as good as having 750 friends -- on Facebook. All it proves is that there might be 125 people with less wit about them than even you. Hard to believe.
I'm not a fan of either Zacks or Seeking Alfalfa. Zacks tends to come in quite late, well after the news has been fully digested by the market and reflected in the stock price. SA is a blog for amateurs and guys that want to think they are pros, as evidenced by the plethora of anonymous contributors, including You-Know-Who. What I find hilarious is that Boo-Fay's contribution on the SinkHole has been deemed by SA to be a "Pro" article that one has to pay for. What a hoot (or should I ask, "what a double-Hoot?").
aj, I think you should read the correspondence again, more carefully, and read the amended agreement. Tower demanded ACP deliver its agreement that an "insolvency event" had NOT occurred and that it state its intention to complete the transaction. ACP's response that you cite said nothing about an agreement regarding its earlier verbally expressed concerns about and insolvency event, and its statement regarding its intentions to complete the deal with the proviso that it " reserves all its rights under the Merger Agreement, with respect to the matters referenced in your letter or otherwise." The agreement is tight but does include some "outs" for ACP should the SinkHole falter on a number of issues and there remains the question of a final price if the deal does get completed.
Boo-Fay is a bit sensitive on a number of issues isn't he? Sexual orientation; challenges to the size of his organ; questions about his professional ethics; challenges to his trading skills: these all seem to send him in a rage. But what else can we expect? After all, he is a Double Who!
So you were a hot-shot M&A lawyer, eh? Should we assume by your professional inactivity that you were caught trading on the inside and properly dis-barred? SEC sanctions? You seem to know enough, perhaps you were the one behind that dubious Euroins bid, set up as a means to make a killing?
Saw this and I immediately thought of the Double Who:
There was a young fellow named Kimble
Whose #$%$ was exceedingly nimble,
But fragile and slender,
And dainty and tender,
So he kept it encased in a thimble.
(Source: The Limerick, edited by G. Legman, Bell Publishing, 1969)
and I'm independently wealthy. Generally do what I want and visit the ATM for a living. Not here all the time, but nice to know you are checking up on me. Considering that you "sold and moved on," why are you still here? So far, all you have offered in the way of an investment thesis is a bit of hysteria about SinkHole having a valid and enforcable contract