4 ms·
It’s still a trivial fraction of the company.
by larnmar 7y ago
It’s still a trivial fraction of the company.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago> It’s still a trivial fraction of the company It's an activist position, not a takeover. The shares are acquired for (a) shareholder rights, which can be accomplished with a single share and (b) economic upside. When a hedge fund pursues this strategy, it typically purchases advertising to make its case. (The case isn't just made to current shareholders. Shares owned by a sympathizer who bought on your activism vote the same as shares held by longtime holders.) That puts a lower bound on the deal size. Galloway has his own channels. That reduces his costs and thus minimum transaction size.
- buboard 7y agohow is an activist shareholder different from an activist?
- ganstyles 7y agoAn activist shareholder owns part of the company and has additional ability to effect change through voting shares. An activist without any shares cannot attend the shareholder meetings, etc. for example.
- buboard 7y agofrom the letter it doesnt seem he can do more with shares than without
- rebuilder 7y agoHe can profit if his activism brings the share price up.
- jjeaff 7y agoAlso, an activist shareholder is usually trying to make money on their investment. Otherwise you would just be an activist that happens to own shares.