They'll keep shaking the tree as long as shares keep dropping out when they do. The impact of completing the dilution from the conversion of debt changes a lot in the dynamic, here, most notably altering dramatically the portion of institutional ownership, and the meaning of the other numbers based on shares outstanding... so mtrewulf's post is inherently incorrect, being based on an outdated number of shares outstanding.
Total Shares Outstanding 51,856,425
% Owned by Insiders 8.42 %
% Owned by Institutions 75.40 %
Total of 83.82 %... but, insiders and institutions now own something closer to 95 % of the total... and the market cap is a bit higher, too... with more shares out.
Shares Float 52,090,400
Total Shares Outstanding 51,856,425
% Owned by Insiders 8.42 %
% Owned by Institutions 75.40 %
Market Cap. $ 13,996,049
Here is the current data from Yahoo:
Shares Outstanding5: 216.94M
Float: 216.44M
% Held by Insiders1: 2.04%
% Held by Institutions1: 17.30%
Shares Short (as of 28-Jul-08)3: 8.18M
Short Ratio (as of 28-Jul-08)3: 4.4
Short % of Float (as of 28-Jul-08)3: 15.90%
Looking at that, it makes sense that the insiders ownership percentage was diluted along with other holders... but, it makes no sense to me that the institutional holdings were diluted, too... unless the converted shares aren't held by institutions ???
Still don't have an answer to the question of who the note holders are/were... so, not knowing who is driving the bus, it is still harder than it should be to figure out where they are intending to go, and what the schedule looks like.
Hayman clearly was correct in identifying a problem with a management that has far too little ownership incentive to do anything that is even close to being the right thing for shareholders. The key question, post conversion, is who are the new owners, and how responsive will management be to shareholders interest now ???
I expect there is ongoing interest in taking over XJT... and, while management was correct that the company was worth a bit more than was being offered by CAL... that same market value now is had at only $0.75 a share... The right question for shareholders, then, wasn't "what is the company really worth"... it was "who is going to gain the benefit of a sale for fair value". Not pre-dilution shareholders. The company will sell for a higher value... it just won't be pre-dilution shareholders who gain any benefit from a higher price.
AI
