"Allison Linn" is an idiot based on that article. She doesn't proof what she posts and doesn't understand English.
For example, she wrote: "Mackey himself, whose identity has been closely tied to the company ..." when she meant to write that the company's identity has been closely tied to Mackey.
Bear Stearns doesn't have much credibility this week, either.
Linn wrote something like "The proposed _________ million deal, announced in February" intending to fill in the blank, presumably with a dollar sign and 3 digits, and then let the article post as "The proposed million deal, announced in February".
Even the comment about competition has been mis-characterized. Of course, if one competitor buys another, one of them will be eliminated from the competition.
Did USDOJ or the FTC block Oracle from buying Peoplesoft? Or Siebel? Or 20-40 other companies? When a dominant player survives with a winning strategy, in this case size of store and format and assortment and employee development and training, etc., what are the small players to do? Spin wheels using capital inefficiently? Or sell and redeploy that capital?
Is there anyone who wants to run Whole Oats making .57 to 71 cents a share rather than sell out for $18.50? They have an interim CEO because they "couldn't come to terms" with the prior one. He probably saw the handwriting on the wall.
Even Whole Foods doesn't want to run Whole Oats. The stores are too small and will be sold or the leases sold to others to run whatever they want to from there (Smart and Final from some of them, some people have guessed).
Whether it's from this merger or not, the Whole Oats locations will compete in a different area within a short period of time (not more than 5 years).
Now, wsj.com has caught the careless disease, with "For Regulars Posters On Whole Foods Board, A Dramatic Twist".
Harobed
(just kidding, FTC) |
