You might be giving us attorneys too much credit (my grandma would not speak with me for a year once I told her I was switching from med school to law school).

However, you are correct re: the wordsmithing aspects of us devious snakes. These guys know what they are writing, and there is a purpose behind every syllable they make public.

Caseysan wrote:

<>

I simply but respectfully disagree. One thing I learned long ago is that you never underestimate people in positions like this, or the things they do publicly. I always assume people in these positions know what they are doing and usually the most obvious simple answer is the correct one. If Pohl believed this would not inflate the SP (or even drop it), we must ask . . . why? The obvious answer is that Pohl, et. al. have a LONG TERM outlook, and have publicly committed to purchasing back stock with at least ten percent of their proceeds (note that is not a maximum amount, but a minimum amount.) To me, that means lower share price = larger buy back.

But, my guess is as good or bad as anyone’s. That simple answer (for my simple mind) makes sense to me, and time will tell.

Cheers,

tps