Dividends, where all shareholders benefited depending upon the number of shares they held.
This is overly simplistic.
If I give you one dollar and flush one dollar down the toilet, have you benefited $2 worth? Now imagine I took the original $2 from your wallet. This is roughly what happened with the dividends. Dividends were also paid to warrant and option holders. While the amount might not have been a 50/50 split as in my $2 example, the dividends didn't benefit all shareholders. It erroded shareholder value by far more than the amount of the dividend rewarded them.
Interestingly, most complain about the dividends, yet currently, many suggest it be the way of the future.
Anyone who suggest dividends "be the way of the future" either haven't learned from history or are incredibly shortsighted. Or they're just looking for a way to exit PTSC.
It's not worth rehashing the whole dividend thing yet again but your characterization of them as a benefit to all shareholders is misguided at best.
- Share buy-backs, reducing float (how much spent? $10-20M?)
While simultaneously issuing shares and increasing the A/S, O/S, and float? What price were the buybacks, what price were new shares issued? Do the math.
- Eliminated outstanding warrants. Some complain about how the warrants came to be, but, none-the-less they were eliminated - a good move. (how much spent? $25-40M?)
A $25-$40M windfall for the warrant holders. How kind of PTSC. Yes, it had to be done. But the BoD authorized the warrants and terms in the first place and then were played like a fiddle by the warrant holder(s).
- Acquisitions. Some believe they are very questionable, others had demanded they take such action. Results TBD, far too early to tell. (how much spent? $10-20M?)
Complete misdirection. Give RG some acquisitions and flowery language and rosey eyed shareholders will be appeased for a few years.
Unfortunately, there is great debate over most of these things, but on their face, they did enhance shareholder value.
No they did not. Not on their face, not in hindsight, not in any substantial or lingering way.
I beleive you said yourself that the current patents should be the sole concern of this company. Why is it that the vast majority of the income is spent on matters other than supporting the MMP (through PDS and as otherwise required)?
