Anyone else would have opted for the 6% div to be re-invested by the company in buybacks? betcha at least 1/2 or more would raise your hands.

It`s always been said that you never get something for nothing. Pohl said the div. was to make a statement to the shareholder, but I sometimes wonder if the payments were made with the hope of it acting as a counterbalance mechanism.

IMHO, and it is yet to be seen, but if we slide backwards to, let`s say the final ``gap`` (of what .46?), I`ll have to surmise the dividends did the (long) shareholder little good, and would have been better sunk into buybacks. If we stay here at .85-90 or a buck, well then, I guess it was an OK move....

Or maybe I`m just pissed I`m not a nimble trader and have let opportunities slip through my fingers.

Just rambling. Guzzled the coffee. Wired.

Regards