Perhaps your response would have been better made if posted as follows:

I don't think the ARS investments are as illiquid as you are implying the are. I think this is a weak criticism. I agree that those assets may have been better invested (though I don't know the interest rate they're getting) - like in more share buy-backs or to significantly decrease S&L's holdings. But to proclaim them "illiquid", as in not accessible is in accurate.

Just as you can borrow against your "illiquid" asset of collateral (equity) in your home, PTSC can readily borrow against that "illiquid asset" - AAA rated/fully backed - at any time. Yup it will cost us - very little in the scheme of things (any interest expense is offset to large degree by the interest we're earning on the asset).

IMO, it's not that hard to "debate" an issue by posting your thoughts without the hyperbole. My question was HOW do you think that PTSC would use this illiquid asset (earlier post I pointed out that it was illiquid in the time frame associated with RG's M&A timetable) with respect to M&A without diluting our shares. Borrowing against it as you point out is one way. I'd argue that this would create debt for PTSC, something it is currently without, and one of its strengths. That being said, I don't think in the context of borrowing againts these investements, adding debt would be a detriment. In fact, it might be a strength as it retains the asset and ideally would add more assets through the M&A.

SGE, I don't think you need to post so agressively about these issues as if you would look at my questions, you'd realize that they were NOT meant as an attack on the investment, but as a question as to how PTSC might best use these funds, since they are now tied up for the duration of time that RG has stated he has targeted his first M&A completion.