21–30 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's how the game is played. If you want to take over a company without the consent of its executives, it's going to be a fight and you're probably going to lose.
The board of a public company cannot reasonably claim that they’re worth twice(!) what the market currently values their company at simply because they feel it’s true. Unless they have advertising contracts and growth metrics in the pipeline that represent a reasonable doubling of revenue and value, they’re acting legally irresponsibly. Justifying this is difficult. This is objectively a good offer.
The notional value is at best the NPV of future profit streams. However Twitter's track record on profits are dismal so the claim is dubious legally.
Quoted post unavailable.
Every company I know of that did a poison pill to prevent a takeover wound up tanking within a year or two and the shareholders wound up with sand. As a Twitter shareholder myself, the board is making a big mistake. As a legal matter, I don't understand how a board could sell shares to other shareholders at a lower price than to the entity wanting to buy shares to gain control.
Quoted post unavailable.
Every company I know of that did a poison pill to prevent a takeover wound up tanking within a year or two and the shareholders wound up with sand. As a Twitter shareholder myself, the board is making a big mistake. As a legal matter, I don't understand how a board could sell shares to other shareholders at a lower price than to the entity wanting to buy shares to gain control.
Quoted post unavailable.
Every company I know of that did a poison pill to prevent a takeover wound up tanking within a year or two and the shareholders wound up with sand. As a Twitter shareholder myself, the board is making a big mistake. As a legal matter, I don't understand how a board could sell shares to other shareholders at a lower price than to the entity wanting to buy shares to gain control.
Predictably stupid. They're going to come back and say the company is worth >$70B.
You’re categorically changing the profile of the stock. This has a chilling effect on large investors, including but not limited just to Musk, right?
Vanguard, for example, has just had its range of further investment limited arbitrarily. Isn’t that bad for all stockholders, to know that large stakeholders will not drive the price up if they somehow gain substantial belief in the company?
The risk portfolio of Vanguard just went up considerably because in the case that they fully lose faith in the board, they no longer have the option of installing a friendly board, they must simply liquidate their holdings. This, in turn, makes them more skeptical of further smaller (non-takeover) investment because it’s more to liquidate and more risk.
Who does this benefit besides the board? I guess I understand that the board is not beholden to the interests of all shareholders equally, and I’m not suggesting that this doesn’t benefit some shareholders, but where does the line start?
Every company I know of that did a poison pill to prevent a takeover wound up tanking within a year or two and the shareholders wound up with sand. As a Twitter shareholder myself, the board is making a big mistake. As a legal matter, I don't understand how a board could sell shares to other shareholders at a lower price than to the entity wanting to buy shares to gain control.
Quoted post unavailable.