3 ms·
> their representing bank (Goldman) [...] rejected the offer. GS deserves some fire under them for this for sure. Not solely for rejecting it, but due to their
by filoleg 5y ago
> their representing bank (Goldman) [...] rejected the offer.
GS deserves some fire under them for this for sure. Not solely for rejecting it, but due to their stated reasoning for "why".
Their reasoning for rejecting the $54/share acquisition offer was "it is too low of a price target". In the meantime, Goldman's own last reported price target for Twitter is at $30/share.
Unless I misunderstand something about how such things work, which is entirely plausible, this isn't a good look for GS at all.
EDIT: as one of the replies pointed out, I was indeed misunderstanding the situation, and there is no actual discrepancy here. The entity saying "$54 is too low" was GS Bank, while "$30 is the target" statement was from GS Investments. They are separate entities and often disagree with each other.
- huslage 5y agoThis is the bank vs the investment side. Goldman Sachs Bank is their representing Bank, Goldman Sachs Investments (or whatever it's called today) is the part that writes the public short-term price targets. They aren't connected and often disagree. It is the responsibility of the Bank to get maximum return on investment for the company. It is the responsibility of the Investments side to get as many customers in the door as possible and to provide them with timely information.
- filoleg 5y ago> This is the bank vs the investment side. Goldman Sachs Bank is their representing Bank, Goldman Sachs Investments (or whatever it's called today) is the part that writes the public short-term price targets. They aren't connected and often disagree. Ah, that actually makes perfect sense, thanks for clarifying.