Replies to post #9153 on One Step Ahead

[Bo14172]

One final point...

When I say CMKX doesn't want a hostile take over from a larger player (such as Debeers), I am talking about losing controlling interest in the company.

Of course a tender offer for our shares at a premium from a larger player would be very good, especially if it is a windfall at .005, .01, .05, etc. Yep, we would all be smiling.

But that's not what I'm talking about.

What I am talking about is that a larger player executing normal share purchases to somehow claim OPERATIONAL CONTROL of the company at the current pricing levels.

I'm simply offering that CMKX MAY BE establishing a way to ensure such a hostile takeover from ever occurring, and advance its goal for additional share retirement.

Again, I temper what I'm saying because I still believe an 800 Billion O/S is a real concern. What I humbly offer would be an ingenious way to accomplish 2 very important goals.

Be well, Bo

[Mach1cobra]

BO, I heard the statement Melvin said and retiring shares makes total sense. The bluff of additional A/S of 300Bil in my opinion is just that a Bluff.

[narvo]

Okay Bo14172 let me try and see if I can get your opinion on this one. Say Urbie has 500 bln. shares a/s and over the last 4 to 6 months one entity has accumulated over 350bln shares alone. I mean I can see DeBeers or a financial enitity wanting this co. if the rumours are true about the diamonds/minerals. Give them enough time and they will own it.JMHO.

Now I can see Urbie increasing the a/s based on that alone. So going back to an entity holding almost a majority of the shares (naked of course).

Now comes the time for a dividend to come out. Going into the payment area, all the shareholders would need to be covered. So if they need to be covered even the majority Naked Shorted shareholder would have to be covered, right? So imagine the majority Naked Shortedshareholder gets covered, would that entity now be a majority shareholder if Urbie did not increase the a/s? That is my question. Would that majority shareholder now become an actual 100% shareholder even though he was sold "shorted shares and has now been covered".
I guess I have not really seem such a question to be brought up. Maybe that is why Urbie had to increase the a/s cause I imagine he sees all shareholders from the list he is sent from the DTC.