I'm just recalling times past, like shortly after the first two dividends came out. Great (and civil) debate on better uses of the money. There was a camp of respected posters who diligently argued that PTSC needed a second revenue stream where income was assured and more predictable than that from the MMP. I was in the camp of pay off the warrants (even at a premium) and then buy back stock and/or invest the money in a safe, simple fashion for even a modest return (arguing that even a modest return would come with no risk and generate a completely predictable second revenue stream, while an acquisition/start-up would be frought with risk, be no more predictable than the MMP, and consume a lot of resources for a long time, plus someone knowledgeable would have to oversee their operations). But my recollection is that the majority voiced their preference for a merger/acquisition or start-up.

I suspect that when the Holocom deal became available, Pohl (rightfully?) thought it a hot deal, and something that many shareholders had been demanding. I strongly suspect that when considering the deal, shareholder demands were part of the picture, and part of the sales pitch to the other BoD members.

So, base your opinion, perhaps, on how good a deal you think Holocom was. Screaming hot? Then maybe shareholder input wasn't much of a factor. So-so? Logic would suggest that shareholder input was more an issue. Crappy? More an issue. Again, he had to sell the acquisition idea to the other BoD members. A pitch of "screaming hot" coupled with satisfying angry shareholder demands would be a sure sale. Much better than "crappy deal" coupled with "and the shareholders will hate it!". LOL

Of course I'm only speculating; I don't KNOW what his thoughts were. But the push (here at least) for a merger/acquisition/start-up as a second revenue stream was pretty strong.

But I agree those decisions weren't purely to appease shareholders (I sure hope they weren't!). So you're right, I got a little carried away.

Thanks,

SGE