> Yelling at the umpires' call (because the rules aren't
> what you thought they were) is poor sportsmanship.
Last bit: if you choose to characterize the discussion that way, then
so be it. I've attempted about nine times to steer this conversation
away from my own situation and personal irritation to a more formal,
more decidable level. I'm less alarmed by my own situation than by
the realization it's awakened in me of just how fucked up the whole
enchilada is. If you'd like to continue biting my ankles, go right
ahead, but if you'd like to turn that sharp analytical mind of yours
to the larger picture then maybe we could make this conversation more
productive.
> * If the idea behind SEC rules is to discourage bubbles by
> ensuring that principals, rather than outside investors,
> wind up holding the bag upon popping, it sounds like they
> were actually effective in this situation.
Underscores your lack of understanding of what I've repeatedly
explained. Sigh. The above conclusion would be true if the notion of
principal vs. external investor were preserved across an acquisition;
generally, they're not. Post-acq, everybody usually gets to be in the
same boat. In my limited experience, generally all shares in a
private company must convert to common pre-transaction; the result is
that everyone ends up holding the same currency post-transaction.
BTW, Dave: I assure you that I pay handsomely for much better
financial advice than you are capable of providing me, some of which I
chose to ignore. That accounts for perhaps 60% of any losses I've
seen in the last year. Don't cry for me, Argentina --- my problems
are, generally speaking, good ones to have. Now run along and play.
:-/ ;-)
jb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 29 2001 - 20:25:26 PDT