back to article Chuh! 'Grossly inadequate': Time Warner Cable rejects $62bn hostile takeover bid

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 …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. localzuk

    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?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Seems odd, when compared to other tech buyouts

      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.

    2. Tiny Iota

      Re: Seems odd, when compared to other tech buyouts

      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.

      1. Darryl

        Re: Seems odd, when compared to other tech buyouts

        Yep, I think Tiny has hit it right on the head. Time Warner is just under the misinformed assumption that they're actually worth that much per share.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Good value?

    With 15.1 million customers (11.4 million internet customers) they rejected an offer of over $4,000 per customer. How could that ever be good value?

    1. b0hem1us

      Re: Good value?

      So the question begs, how much does a customer go for these days?

  3. MooseNC

    $83 in cash? Is there supposed to be a million in there, or are they giving them cab fare?

    1. Horned-Devil

      Per share...

  4. Mikel

    Fiber Internet

    At that price Charter could just offer gigabit fiber and run TWC out of town the old fashioned competitive product way.

    1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      Re: Fiber Internet

      You're funny. That would be good for the customer. ISPs don't ever do anything that might potentially benefit a customer.

  5. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge

    There is always a bit I get confused by ...

    ... 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?

    1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      Re: There is always a bit I get confused by ...

      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.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019