Leigh,
I believe you're right.......sort of. By this, I mean Tescorp did the right thing for the majority of its shareholders. Like it should do. These shares grew at a 48% annualized clip over the past four years. Management did an excellent job in creating value for MOST of its shareholders. In a nutshell, insiders and a majority of the largest shareholders bought the stock or were given options to purchase shares at $2.00 or less. These people loved the deal, and they represent over 50% of the shares outstanding. The people that were not pleased with the deal were the investors that bought the stock over the past twelve months or so. They purchased the shares in the $3.25 to $4.50 range and felt cheated when the Company sold out at a much lower price than they would have received in three months or so. This is not only my views, feel free to contact the Prudential analyst who followed Tescorp. Anyway, by agreeing to the $4.50 price, the majority of the shareholders (who I must add would not have been able to capitalize on a $6 share price in the near term due to their extensive holdings and the illiquid trading of the stock) were able to receive a very nice gain on their entire holdings. The "more recent" investors, however, felt shafted because they knew the $4.50 price was way undervalued. Personally, I belonged to both parties. On one hand, I was happy with the $4.50 price because I got in at a nice entry price a couple of years ago. On the other hand, I continued to buy through 1997 and feel somewhat "cheated" that I didn't receive maximum value for my recent investments. All in all, I hope you do not view me as a person who is greedy. I feel Tescorp management's duty was to maximize shareholder value, they did a great job for the majority of their shareholders, and I am happy that I was able to come out ahead in the long run. |
