Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Conseco Insurance (CNO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tunica Albuginea who wrote (3036)	9/21/2000 1:57:38 PM
From: Kevin Podsiadlik	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4155

Let's just put it this way. If AIG was really that hot to acquire Wendt, they could save themselves a lot of trouble and money by just hiring him away. Throw $100 million at Wendt, another $100 million at CNC to compensate them for losing Wendt, done deal, and they've just saved themselves the hassle of a few billion dollars of debt. IMHO it's nothing short of madness to think that AIG would voluntarily take on someone else's debt crisis just to acquire their CEO. And in the unlikely event AIG is stupid enough to go that route, I will be happy to exchange my CNC short position for one in AIG.

To: Tunica Albuginea who wrote (3036)	9/21/2000 2:19:29 PM
From: Tunica Albuginea	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4155

From YHOO on AIG/CNC/and other M&A thoughts by dunnonuthin: Re: Read The Following From TA's Hangout by: dunnonuthin 9/20/00 11:45 pm Msg: 73388 of 73526 messages.yahoo.com There was a poster here by the handle "arrogance_and_complacency." He meant it for the longs. Examine the very first paragraph and see the oxymorons: I would suggest CNC doesn't need or necessarily want a buyout at this time for it to be a good investment. It is not likely a very desirable property at this point with all the uncertainty built in. It has "all the uncertainty built in" such that it's not "a very desirable property at this point" but it is such a "good investment" that "doesn't need or necessarily want a buyout at this time"? Trust me on this one, if it's not a very desirable property to a buyer then it's not a good investment. When you invest in a stock, you're very much a buyer buying into the company. I suggest rather that CNC is a good investment because it's a desirable property undervalued. Whether the real value will be realized through an M&A or on the open market, that's what an investor is looking for. On the contrary, CNC NEEDS to merge. That is the very method of getting rid of "the uncertainty built in." Hello? To be completely truthful, CNC is LESS desirable because of "the uncertainty built in" to stock investors than to a corporate buyer. While stock buyers can help rid the uncertainty by bidding the stock up and giving it a market capitalization, if you could get so many heads together, the corporate buyer could directly eliminate "the uncertainty built in." Overnight the capital structure problem would be solved. The ratings harrassment would go away. What remains is a line of businesses highly valuable in their cashflows and potential ultimate profits. Now I was here in May calling attention to all this. M&A is a good idea regardless. Even if Conseco is in the best of health and nary a problem. Of course, Conseco happens to NEED it and need it now. Get a clue! IJ was trying to provide one for crying out loud (albeit not a very good nor plausible one). But then along came the great GW. Still this does not change the fundamentals for this industry, nevermind in the particular dire case of Conseco. The job of GW is to be in charge of the merchandise and giving it respectability and restoring its appeal, whether in the capital market or to a corporate buyer. But from day one here I remain convinced that the purpose of this merchandise is to be sold. Call it its raison d'etre. Conseco's parts will live on in the better entity. Shareholders will hold on to the shares now of a better entity. GW will better lead a better entity. The argument seems to be that an independent Conseco will return more to the shareholders. That is what arrogance_and_complacency was directing his handle at! "All the uncertainty built in" that is casually ignored and clearly not understood though lip-serviced. Friends, it's a competitive world out there. If guys multiple times bigger than you find the need to merge into a bigger entity... And you with people trying to short_you_to_zero think that you need nothing... Why, you ARE arrogance_and_complacency. What my post earlier means to convey is that an M&A involving Conseco is a certainty. And frankly we are fortunate to have Mr. Wendt on board to make it all happen at our increased advantage. It will be done when it can be done. Exactly when even Mr. Wendt himself may not know yet. But that's why it could be ANYTIME. Who knows in advance of opportunity? But be sure to recognize it at the door. But as Mr. Wendt made it clear, no fire sales.