Go to the SL Capital Exchange headquarters and open an account now!

Important: Please read our disclosure.

Home Portfolio Trading IPO CEO Rules Forums Affiliates Help
 

All posts by Redd Oconnell

Jul 26th 2008, 12:54
Redd Oconnell 		SL Capital Exchange Archive » buyback of all shares?
buyback of all shares?
Wanted to get some more details regarding the buyback of "all outstanding shares of INC stock at L$0.85 per share".

This had a 72 hour time limit on it? What will happen to the shares that have not been sold back within this very short 72 hour window? Is this a case of those who did not see it in time simply being screwed out of their investments? Also, the bit in the PR post about that price being more than twice the share price, is a bit off, concidering that just a couple of days prior it was trading above that L$0.85 price.
Aug 3rd 2008, 22:35
Redd Oconnell 		General Investment Discussion » Insurance
Re: Insurance
Personally I strongly recommend that no one purchases this insurance, as the costs appear to be more than the benefit by quite a bit. They are effectively only insuring (some) companies that are doing well, and not insuring any companies that are likely to be in trouble (and these "certificates" are only good for a month anyways if I am understanding this correctly). It's kind of like offering flood insurance in the middle of a desert or fire insurance in the vacuum of space.

And their BIC coverage appears to work as either an out so that they don't have to pay 100% if the CEO of a company does not pay the premium for this coverage and as a way to try to get the stockholders to pressure the CEO's into carrying this coverage.

"When a company has B.I.C. (Basic insurance Coverage) our ATM’s will offer additional insurance certificates for those shareholders that are looking to have a 100% coverage.” Thus the 100% coverage that they say is payable on another page is only valid if this BIC coverage is also carried (and I have not seen how much they actually cover if this is not covered, unless I'm misunderstanding this whole BIC explanation, which admittedly is possible, and if such is the case I'd like for someone to clear this up for me).

Thus they only cover those companies that are healthy and that they approve ahead of time (without complete and clear standards (that actually make sense from a business standpoint) as to why some companies don't appear to be covered and others do). However as such, these companies are unlikely to fail anyways, whereas those that are more likely to fail, they will drop coverage of (and since their coverage only lasts 30 days, it will be an easy task for them to drop such companies that do move towards needing such coverage by their stockholders). So the only other reason to carry the insurance might be to cover some unexpected rule-change that LL may hand down... but wait, that is not covered either: "Coverage is granted for bankruptcy only . Coverage is not provided if LL decides to change rules causing involuntary bankruptcies"

Then there is the simple fact that if someone cannot afford to lose the funds that they have invested, they should not have invested them in the first place. Investments are risky, and especially so in SL due to the rampant fraud and disappearing CEO's. But the simple fact of the matter is that I cannot see a CEO paying 6% annually to increase the coverage for their shareholders, while those shareholders are also paying money to an insurance provider for coverage that may not be covered when it comes down to it. If people are so concerned about their investments, then they would be wiser to simply keep a closer eye on those investments and learn as much about those investments before making them. In which case such insurance should not be needed.