Your GNET views are not supported by the facts, option.
GNET insiders weren't, as you say, "eager to sell," and the $90 per share tender offer to shareholders represented not a ceiling but rather, a floor; it was instituted at GNET's behest, not Vulcan's. (Not a single outsider share was tendered to Vulcan at $90.) GNET's relationship with Vulcan is in no way comparable to the USAI/LCOS controversy.
The history of Paul Allen's GNET investment is well documented on the thread. If you're interested, go back through the last few months of posts and understand the nature of the deal; if you're not, then you might want to avoid making statements that suggest ignorance.
To say that GNET's current share price represents a loss of confidence in GNET is manifestly incorrect. It simply represents a short-term sector consolidation due to normal economic cycles--and effects on investors thereof. Such consolidation has occurred in the past and will occur in the future.
The interest rate issue is largely noise, to which the herd reacts. That's all it is. By jawboning, Greenspan has already cooled off the the markets and the economy; he need not raise rates and probably can't anyway, due to the effect that doing so will have on the dollar, the trade deficit and fragile foreign economies.
The markets will soon recover from this episode. The only question is whether incremental investors want to pay under $100 for GNET, or over $100. Given an apparent downside risk of $90, the answer's pretty simple.
BAM |
