InvestorsHub Logo

Rawnoc

02/22/09 2:10 PM

#19178 RE: Netman #19176

If a seller on the 18th "sold away" his distribution rights, then it stands to reason that the person he sold them TO would GET the distribution rights....

Which was MY point all along -- the record date was meaningless. The ex-dividend date and the distribution date was the same as with a typical spinoff.

the big guy

02/22/09 2:37 PM

#19182 RE: Netman #19176

Well, I don't believe you. This is the beauty of the internet, my ability to state my opinion. The paradox, and the reason why I don't frequent these boards, is that I don't need it to make my decisions. I only state my opinions and give advice... but I make my own decisions.. so i choose not to believe you. It goes against common sense and my research.

It also doe n ot really matter, as in the bigger pictuire, as i have said before, the stock appears to have fallen as a result of the spinoff shares not being available to stockholders, regardless of the speciic dates.

You have not proven it.

the big guy

02/22/09 2:41 PM

#19183 RE: Netman #19176

Even if you are right... that is the shareholder's fault if they do that... they got fooled. Once again, they should not be relying on the internet to make their decisions.