Hi levy, well, I guess we can stick to our beliefs [especially those that don't cause any negative consequence to others, this is just a general stmt not pertaining to this case.] However, I don't think Mr Horowitz would have acted otherwise. I mean, a merger is usually friendly and a takeover can be hostile, but never a grudging merger. Otherwise, how else would the investment bankers sell the idea to the public? When the merger was announced, the mkt has begun to crumple. While the net was still riding high, I will bet the insiders know the funding has begun to dry up. I said this on the assumption that suckers like us retail customers in the stk mkt are the last to know. The trailing indicator, if you will.
I mean, maybe you are right that Mr Horowitz was naive. I really don't know him. And I don't know Mr Jain either, for that matter. However, how this thread portraits Mr Horowitz as a smart cookie and a naive person doesn't wash together. I mean, you cannot have both, not that it is a either-or proposition. One has to give credit to Mr Horowitz, who has built GNET to what it was before the acquisition. However, one has to make up one's mind, did he get to where he was by dumb luck or with savvy. Again, I am not trying to denigrate anyone, but this good-versus-evil corporate drama is more in the mind of the romantic, not corporate reality
best, Bosco |
