<<It seems to me that the single reason a stockholder would vote yes on this deal is the fear that if he doesn't SEG will fall back into the condition where its market price fails to fully recognize the market price of VRTS. Anyone have another and/or better reason for checking the "FOR" box on the form? >>
No, except for employees and prospective stockholders of the New Seagate who are willing to hang on to their illiquid investment for a few years. The same reasoning led me to sell my Seagate holdings that was in tax qualified accounts some time ago, though I still hold some in a tax account, unsure of exactly what to do.
But, frankly, I don't think that it is awful if the market doesn't fully recognize the value of VRTS. That is what the market frequently does in situations like that, sometimes drastically so (e.g., the TOY/Petrie situation). But in Seagate's case, all they had to do was keep selling off a million or three shares of VRTS, pay the damn tax, and have a great balance sheet while making investments that would bolster their business, or that would grow and eventually be salable assets. Is that such a bad position to be in? The answer is obvious, which is why I think your comment that the market not recognizing the full value of Veritas within Seagate is what drove this whole deal in the first place is incorrect--it was management/Silver Lake/Texas Pacific greed that drove this deal, they just used the Veritas situation to opportunistically make an low-ball offer that they thought/perhaps still think shareholders won't be able to refuse.
Sam
P.S. What do you think about HTCH's report? They say they will be in some SEG programs. And adopt "shareholder rights" plan. Fascinating. I wonder who would take them over. Fujitsu? MKE? DSS? IBM? |
