Seems odd, when compared to other tech buyouts
From what I've seen, they usually offer a premium on top of stock price. Why would shareholders agree at stock prices? What extra (short term) does it gain investors?
Time Warner Cable has rejected a hostile takeover bid from Charter Communications, calling its $62bn offer "grossly inadequate". Charter yesterday formally offered to buy up its rival for $132.50 a share, including $83 in cash and the rest in its own stock, after months of acquisition talks between the companies. But Time …
Perhaps there is some bad news on the way that will depress the share price making the bid price a nice premium for investors?
No I don't have any information relating to this and I am not an employee of either company or any of their bankers/investment advisors/lawyers.
I think the news/rumours of this takeover interest have been known for a while, and so the market would have priced in the premium already. I.e. they got excited about a potential takeover and the price went up, meaning the shares are already trading above what they would normally be if it wasn’t for this takeover interest.
... every time talk of a hostile takeover comes up, exemplified by the statement " ... Charter chief Tom Rutledge said that Time had rejected proposals in June and October last year and "refused to engage" until December." My confusion comes from this idea that anyone should "enagage" with someone wanting to buy something, whether or not they actually want to sell. I see it as the equivalent of someone coming to my house and saying "I want to buy this house", and then getting all huffy that I didn't "engage" with him when I told him to get stuffed. Where does this attitude of "I'm going to buy whether you want to sell or not" come from? Is it different in the land of big business?
Because your analogy sucks, good sir?
This is more akin to a property being owned by an elderly out-of-country couple and managed locally by a hired property management firm. A property developer comes along looking to buy up all the houses in a given subdivision so they can raze the whole lot and rebuild.
The developer submit an offer to the property management firm in question and ask them to pass that information up the stack to the property owners. The property management firm for whatever reason says "get stuffed". The developer says "I don't think so," then goes and pulls the property records from the local city hall and sends the offer via certified mail to the elderly out-of-country-couple, bypassing the property management firm.
That is a far more accurate analogy for this situation.
Offer made to the elderly couple - in this case, the offer presented to the shareholders directly at a shareholder's meeting - the "owners" then have their chance to say "get stuffed" or accept. The opinions and desires of the management company - in this case, the board of directors - are completely irrelevant; they are hired only the manage the asset. Their feelings about who can or can't own it simply don't matter.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019