<<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.>>
Chances are, if you or I WERE prospective stockholders of New Seagate (which looks to be a real value stock play) we would vote YES too. But its a limited class and we aren't in it, neither are most Old Seagate stockholders.
<<But, frankly, I don't think that it is awful if the market doesn't fully recognize the value of VRTS. >>
Nor do I. The failure to recognize that value is also the shield against risk and volatility. The trouble is most folk want to have their cake and eat it too.
For me to say the "valuation failure" carping drove the deal is perhaps not true. One can't read the minds of the board. But it is for sure that this particular issue has been in play for some time....it came up repeatedly in conference calls well before this deal was announced.
It is sort of striking how obvious, blatant, and raw the conflicts of interest are and difficult it is to find an accountability path. If not the BOD then who?
Still, obvious corruption aside, I fail to see why anyone who, for whatever reason, now holds Seagate, would see it in his or her best interest to exchange it for .467 shares of VRTS plus 5 bucks except for the single narrow one I posed; but then I'm one of those intellectually challenged people with a limited imagination. I can't wait to see how that vote actually turns out, if it turns out.
<<P.S. What do you think about HTCH's report?>>
I thought it stunk. Yes, its good news they got a toe in the Seagate door but there was nothing to suggest its more than a token amount in the great scheme of things. My problem is they keep slipping badly in their unit share of the market. But the stock was up today, so what do I know :o)
Keep the faith........Tom |
