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.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (13699)	8/13/1998 7:47:00 PM
From: Snake	Respond to of 152472

All they need is 51% and they can squeeze the rest out, whether you want to sell or not.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (13699)	8/13/1998 8:05:00 PM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Maurice - It seems to me they can only do so by offering enough money to satisfy a majority of shareholders. Gregg's and my shares are not going to sell for $80. Nor $100. $1000 they can have them right now. Thinking seriously at $200. Everyone else will have a price in mind. While that is true, it is also true that if the majority of shareholders thought that the stock was worth $200, then liquidity would dry up until the price actually moved to that point. This is, of course, an oversimplification. Most of the trade volume on any given day is short term traders even though they control only a small portion of the float, but nonetheless, traders tend to amplify longer-term trends. Thus the mechanism is: assume that the majority (e.g. 80%) of the stock holders did indeed think the stock was worth $200 long term. As long as it is trading for substantially less than that, we should be buying more and more stock until the liquidy dries up enough that the day traders need to bid up the price in order to get any. The very fact that that isn't happening means that either there aren't that many people who believe it, or they lack conviction, which is sort of the same thing as not believing it. Clark PS Maurice - I didn't respond to your last post about investor psychology because I largely agree with it. An investment psychology event needs to be primed before mass psychology can really feed upon itself. (Just to be argumentative <g>, I don't believe that all such primings are obvious, nor do all primings inevitably lead to an 'event', but that is somewhat of a nit.) PPS Does anyone know of any company that has recently been taken over in a hostile takeover despite the share-dividend defense. It would be interesting to go back and see the events leading up to the final takeover.