9 ms·

1. How does that look for a random TWTR holder far away from SV? One day his broker just informs him that there are no longer securities on his account, but tha

by krick 5y ago

1. How does that look for a random TWTR holder far away from SV? One day his broker just informs him that there are no longer securities on his account, but that account has received some cash? 2. Why is it even allowed (by the government) to decide the share price at the board meeting? These shares don't belong to them, somebody has purchased them already. And these people have decided what the shares are worth, that's kinda the definition of "market price". The board didn't decide that, market did. If they want to get these shares back it sounds only fair that they should have to pay what the new owners consider the fair price, whatever it is.

aquark 5y ago
1/ Yes, and you also potentially incur taxable capitals gains at a time not of your choosing, which can suck.
mylons 5y ago
1: yes. you get cash for your shares. 2: the board is representative of the share holders, like your US Congress person. they have a fiduciary responsibility to give the share holders value. the only reasonable way they could blow up this deal is if twitter had an incredible roadmap with a very good path to matching the value or exceeding the value of Elon's offer. no such roadmap exists, apparently.
- krick 5y ago
  2. That doesn't answer my question. Actually, I'm not even sure how it attempted to. I specifically mentioned the "market price". I don't really know how these US congress persons work, and you may as well imply that the idea that they "represent" you is as much bullshit, as Musk-assigned board member represent real shareholders (and I have no problem with this implication), but there surely must be difference (and it isn't even the fact that you supposedly voted for them): unlike congress people, who can decide whatever they decide in the USA congress, the board cannot decide the market price. At least, usually. Every shareholder wants market price to be higher, and the board members are supposed to try to achieve that, but they cannot appoint the price, they simply have no such power. By definition, it's the market who decides that. Otherwise, it isn't clear, what the "not so low that the government gets involved" is even supposed to be. I fully admit that I don't understand how this works, so this may sound silly, but it would seem fair to me that since the moment company became public, nobody ever can undo that, because microscopic pieces of that company legally belong to some random people now, and they can ask whatever price they want for their share. If anybody makes them sell at any price that's less than what they want — it's a robbery. Now, I can kind of imagine the way this could be worked around. E.g., there must be some way to liquidate the company, and hence there must be way to execute the merger regardless of what shareholder minority thinks of that. Each company gets supposedly "fair" valuation before the merge and old shareholders get specific amount of "new" shares in exchange to their old shares, which is kinda like getting the cash, so here we go. I mean, I still cannot explain myself, how this can be considered fair and legal, but I suppose there is an explanation. But even this way, the natural way to do that seems to use today's market price. So even if 51% belongs to 1 person and nobody else can decide anything (so, he basically IS the board already), how can this person offer shareholders anything else than the market price for what belongs to them? This doesn't make any sense to me. It sounds like a robbery, plain and simple.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - zwily 5y ago
    There are stipulations that come with buying shares. In fact when you buy shares, they’re never even actually in your name. They’re like 3 steps removed from you via various holding companies that are basically a bunch of various crap. One of the stipulations of being a shareholder is that you may be forced to sell your shares under certain circumstances. Nothing illegal about it, even if you don’t like it.
    - jembiblio 5y ago
      It's interesting to read how a takeover works from a US public markets perspective because the situation is completely different in the UK. Takeovers of UK-listed companies are subject to the Takeover Code [0] which is administered by an independent body called the Takeover Panel. The Takeover Code is actually a surprisingly readable document which sets out all the rules that the bidder, the target and the shareholders must follow. A "mandatory" takeover in the UK is triggered when a shareholder goes over a 30% shareholding - they are then obliged to make an offer for the stock that they do not own at the highest price they have paid in the previous 12 months. Shareholders cannot be forced to sell until the bidder has received acceptances of more than 90% of the shares to which the offer relates. The board of the target will offer shareholders an opinion on the takeover price - they can either recommend or reject the offer. Typically, when boards recommend an offer then shareholders will accept but there is certainly no obligation to. Interestingly, the Takeover Panel used to have no legal enforcement powers (I'm not sure exactly what their status is these days). To ensure compliance with the rules there was a punishment called 'cold-shouldering' - basically if you breached the Takeover Code in an egregious way, the Takeover Panel could instruct market participants to stop dealing with the guilty party. This has only been used in very rare circumstances [1]. [0] https://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/The-Take-Over_Bookmarked_09.02.22.pdf?v=9Feb2022 https://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/... [1] https://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/the-code/compliance/cold-shouldering https://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/the-code/compliance/cold...
    - 5y ago
- tptacek 5y ago
  The board could very easily have blown up the deal, which is proceeding only because they've consented to it. The game plan is simple: they do nothing, Musk executes a tender offer (which has a good chance of failing, so there's an out), the board says "nice job, but we're holding out for more money, check in with us next year", Musk launches a proxy fight, but it goes nowhere because Twitter has a staggered board and so there's no chance of a change of control within the next 12 months, 11 months go by, and we look at the price of the stock; if it's up, Twitter's board has de facto won the argument; if it's down, Musk's bid is no longer economically rational. Repeat. The most boring conclusion here (boringness on message boards usually being a strong proxy for accuracy) is that the board's initial reaction to Musk's offer was reflexive, the same way you'd push back on someone offering to buy your house based on a fixed premium from like Zillow, and that over the ensuing weeks they've managed to do the homework to evaluate the deal, and they've decided Musk is overpaying, so they're taking him up on it. From everything I've read --- I'm not an expert and someone like 'JumpCrisscross could jump in and correct me --- is that the deal blowing up was essentially the default state, once the shareholder rights plan was put in place.
  - 542458 5y ago
    There’s an alternative explanation to why the board did what they did: Musk has played fast and loose with “I have the funding for this deal” and “I am correctly disclosing my share purchases” in the past. The poison pill was a way to get him to slow down and talk to the board and get his lawyers to sit down with their lawyers and make sure this wasn’t going to be another “I’m taking Tesla private” moment. (not saying you’re wrong, both or neither of these may be true)
    - tptacek 5y ago
      Sure, I'm not unbiased here and am framing this in the way least favorable to Musk --- that if a board is going to accept a first (=chuckle= no, "final") offer from a bidder, it's because the price is more than the board thinks the company is worth. But it's also true that they may have done that calculation quickly, and that really they were just making sure this wasn't an elaborate joke. Part of my analysis is based on the rumor that Twitter completed a valuation over the weekend, and it wasn't super favorable. But I've got no reliable reporting that establishes that. Either way, my real point is just that the board could easily have stopped this deal if they wanted to; in fact, they didn't even have to do anything to do stop it.
ransom1538 5y ago
Pretty much. Your tdameritrade account will just update and stick cash into your account and explain what they did in the cost basis tab.
- revicon 5y ago
  BTW, this is a taxable event where you might not have expected it to otherwise.
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    Hadn’t thought of that, this is a great way to force some taxation on billionaires who hold indefinitely! I wonder if the federal government would ever purchase companies like this…
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
friesfreeze 5y ago
Wrt 2: It's a bit complicated. The "market price" isn't really the target here, if you are talking about the price of the stock on stock exchanges. It's accepted that there is a thing called a "control premium" - basically it is more valuable to own >50% of a company because in addition to having an economic stake, you can now control the company. So when you are buying a company, you generally have to pay more (20%+) than the "market price" because you are also purchasing the "control premium". So, there is a zero sum game going on here. That control premium is going to be divided up between the buyer and the seller based on the strength of their bargaining positions. For various reasons (poison pill included) board has a stronger negotiating position in extracting the "control premium" than do individual investors. If you weaken the current shareholder's bargaining position (by for example not allowing the board to negotiate price) you increase the share of the control premium going to the purchaser and decrease the share going to the current shareholders. FWIW the poison pill is controversial. But from a "Law and Econ" perspective - this is the main justification.
- friesfreeze 5y ago
  Also - since I'm on a bit of a roll - there are definitely other stories for what is going on here. One is that poison pills kind of soften the edges of capitalism a bit by allowing directors to decide if they want to the company to be sold or not. Call it crocodile tears by entrenched management, but there is something to be said for keeping a company off the market if the hostile bidder is going to just fire workers and scrap the company for parts. Fairly, this view is not consistent with "shareholder primacy" but it has to be said that not everyone sees the world that way.
  - krick 5y ago
    Thanks, that's a bit more of an explanation to what I was wondering about than most of the other answers.
    - friesfreeze 5y ago
      You're welcome. Corporate governance is a surprisingly controversial area for how boring it seems at first glance. Here's a more in depth apologetic for the interested: https://theliptonarchive.org/1980s/ https://theliptonarchive.org/1980s/
WalterBright 5y ago
I had some stock long term in Tiffany. Last year, Tiffany was bought by some outfit, and I received cash for the stock. I found out about it by looking at the statement and wondering where that cash came from :-/ I have some TWTR, and I expect the same thing will happen.
- mise_en_place 5y ago
  Similar thing happened to me when AMD acquired Xilinx. I got AMD stock and some cash. These types of transactions are usually automated, by an entity like DTCC I would guess.
  - saagarjha 5y ago
    Didn't XLNX turn into AMD directly at some fixed rate?
    - kgwgk 5y ago
      The exchange rate was not an integer. If you have to receive a fractional number of shares it’s rounded down and you get a cash payment for the rest.
firecall 5y ago
I have first hand experience of an Australian ASX company being taken private: In that Instance it was decided by a share holder vote after board negotiations. Then you get a cheque for the money once it's agreed and gone through. Happens very quickly with no fuss. All very efficient. And that's that. I wonder if the NASDAQ or similar in the US requires a share holder vote?

by krick 5y ago

aquark 5y ago

1/ Yes, and you also potentially incur taxable capitals gains at a time not of your choosing, which can suck.

mylons 5y ago

1: yes. you get cash for your shares. 2: the board is representative of the share holders, like your US Congress person. they have a fiduciary responsibility to give the share holders value. the only reasonable way they could blow up this deal is if twitter had an incredible roadmap with a very good path to matching the value or exceeding the value of Elon's offer. no such roadmap exists, apparently.

krick 5y ago
2. That doesn't answer my question. Actually, I'm not even sure how it attempted to. I specifically mentioned the "market price". I don't really know how these US congress persons work, and you may as well imply that the idea that they "represent" you is as much bullshit, as Musk-assigned board member represent real shareholders (and I have no problem with this implication), but there surely must be difference (and it isn't even the fact that you supposedly voted for them): unlike congress people, who can decide whatever they decide in the USA congress, the board cannot decide the market price. At least, usually. Every shareholder wants market price to be higher, and the board members are supposed to try to achieve that, but they cannot appoint the price, they simply have no such power. By definition, it's the market who decides that. Otherwise, it isn't clear, what the "not so low that the government gets involved" is even supposed to be. I fully admit that I don't understand how this works, so this may sound silly, but it would seem fair to me that since the moment company became public, nobody ever can undo that, because microscopic pieces of that company legally belong to some random people now, and they can ask whatever price they want for their share. If anybody makes them sell at any price that's less than what they want — it's a robbery. Now, I can kind of imagine the way this could be worked around. E.g., there must be some way to liquidate the company, and hence there must be way to execute the merger regardless of what shareholder minority thinks of that. Each company gets supposedly "fair" valuation before the merge and old shareholders get specific amount of "new" shares in exchange to their old shares, which is kinda like getting the cash, so here we go. I mean, I still cannot explain myself, how this can be considered fair and legal, but I suppose there is an explanation. But even this way, the natural way to do that seems to use today's market price. So even if 51% belongs to 1 person and nobody else can decide anything (so, he basically IS the board already), how can this person offer shareholders anything else than the market price for what belongs to them? This doesn't make any sense to me. It sounds like a robbery, plain and simple.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- zwily 5y ago
  There are stipulations that come with buying shares. In fact when you buy shares, they’re never even actually in your name. They’re like 3 steps removed from you via various holding companies that are basically a bunch of various crap. One of the stipulations of being a shareholder is that you may be forced to sell your shares under certain circumstances. Nothing illegal about it, even if you don’t like it.
  - jembiblio 5y ago
    It's interesting to read how a takeover works from a US public markets perspective because the situation is completely different in the UK. Takeovers of UK-listed companies are subject to the Takeover Code [0] which is administered by an independent body called the Takeover Panel. The Takeover Code is actually a surprisingly readable document which sets out all the rules that the bidder, the target and the shareholders must follow. A "mandatory" takeover in the UK is triggered when a shareholder goes over a 30% shareholding - they are then obliged to make an offer for the stock that they do not own at the highest price they have paid in the previous 12 months. Shareholders cannot be forced to sell until the bidder has received acceptances of more than 90% of the shares to which the offer relates. The board of the target will offer shareholders an opinion on the takeover price - they can either recommend or reject the offer. Typically, when boards recommend an offer then shareholders will accept but there is certainly no obligation to. Interestingly, the Takeover Panel used to have no legal enforcement powers (I'm not sure exactly what their status is these days). To ensure compliance with the rules there was a punishment called 'cold-shouldering' - basically if you breached the Takeover Code in an egregious way, the Takeover Panel could instruct market participants to stop dealing with the guilty party. This has only been used in very rare circumstances [1]. [0] https://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/The-Take-Over_Bookmarked_09.02.22.pdf?v=9Feb2022 https://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/... [1] https://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/the-code/compliance/cold-shouldering https://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/the-code/compliance/cold...
  - 5y ago
tptacek 5y ago
The board could very easily have blown up the deal, which is proceeding only because they've consented to it. The game plan is simple: they do nothing, Musk executes a tender offer (which has a good chance of failing, so there's an out), the board says "nice job, but we're holding out for more money, check in with us next year", Musk launches a proxy fight, but it goes nowhere because Twitter has a staggered board and so there's no chance of a change of control within the next 12 months, 11 months go by, and we look at the price of the stock; if it's up, Twitter's board has de facto won the argument; if it's down, Musk's bid is no longer economically rational. Repeat. The most boring conclusion here (boringness on message boards usually being a strong proxy for accuracy) is that the board's initial reaction to Musk's offer was reflexive, the same way you'd push back on someone offering to buy your house based on a fixed premium from like Zillow, and that over the ensuing weeks they've managed to do the homework to evaluate the deal, and they've decided Musk is overpaying, so they're taking him up on it. From everything I've read --- I'm not an expert and someone like 'JumpCrisscross could jump in and correct me --- is that the deal blowing up was essentially the default state, once the shareholder rights plan was put in place.
- 542458 5y ago
  There’s an alternative explanation to why the board did what they did: Musk has played fast and loose with “I have the funding for this deal” and “I am correctly disclosing my share purchases” in the past. The poison pill was a way to get him to slow down and talk to the board and get his lawyers to sit down with their lawyers and make sure this wasn’t going to be another “I’m taking Tesla private” moment. (not saying you’re wrong, both or neither of these may be true)
  - tptacek 5y ago
    Sure, I'm not unbiased here and am framing this in the way least favorable to Musk --- that if a board is going to accept a first (=chuckle= no, "final") offer from a bidder, it's because the price is more than the board thinks the company is worth. But it's also true that they may have done that calculation quickly, and that really they were just making sure this wasn't an elaborate joke. Part of my analysis is based on the rumor that Twitter completed a valuation over the weekend, and it wasn't super favorable. But I've got no reliable reporting that establishes that. Either way, my real point is just that the board could easily have stopped this deal if they wanted to; in fact, they didn't even have to do anything to do stop it.

ransom1538 5y ago

Pretty much. Your tdameritrade account will just update and stick cash into your account and explain what they did in the cost basis tab.

revicon 5y ago
BTW, this is a taxable event where you might not have expected it to otherwise.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  Hadn’t thought of that, this is a great way to force some taxation on billionaires who hold indefinitely! I wonder if the federal government would ever purchase companies like this…

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

friesfreeze 5y ago

Wrt 2: It's a bit complicated. The "market price" isn't really the target here, if you are talking about the price of the stock on stock exchanges. It's accepted that there is a thing called a "control premium" - basically it is more valuable to own >50% of a company because in addition to having an economic stake, you can now control the company. So when you are buying a company, you generally have to pay more (20%+) than the "market price" because you are also purchasing the "control premium". So, there is a zero sum game going on here. That control premium is going to be divided up between the buyer and the seller based on the strength of their bargaining positions. For various reasons (poison pill included) board has a stronger negotiating position in extracting the "control premium" than do individual investors. If you weaken the current shareholder's bargaining position (by for example not allowing the board to negotiate price) you increase the share of the control premium going to the purchaser and decrease the share going to the current shareholders. FWIW the poison pill is controversial. But from a "Law and Econ" perspective - this is the main justification.

friesfreeze 5y ago
Also - since I'm on a bit of a roll - there are definitely other stories for what is going on here. One is that poison pills kind of soften the edges of capitalism a bit by allowing directors to decide if they want to the company to be sold or not. Call it crocodile tears by entrenched management, but there is something to be said for keeping a company off the market if the hostile bidder is going to just fire workers and scrap the company for parts. Fairly, this view is not consistent with "shareholder primacy" but it has to be said that not everyone sees the world that way.
- krick 5y ago
  Thanks, that's a bit more of an explanation to what I was wondering about than most of the other answers.
  - friesfreeze 5y ago
    You're welcome. Corporate governance is a surprisingly controversial area for how boring it seems at first glance. Here's a more in depth apologetic for the interested: https://theliptonarchive.org/1980s/ https://theliptonarchive.org/1980s/

WalterBright 5y ago

I had some stock long term in Tiffany. Last year, Tiffany was bought by some outfit, and I received cash for the stock. I found out about it by looking at the statement and wondering where that cash came from :-/ I have some TWTR, and I expect the same thing will happen.

mise_en_place 5y ago
Similar thing happened to me when AMD acquired Xilinx. I got AMD stock and some cash. These types of transactions are usually automated, by an entity like DTCC I would guess.
- saagarjha 5y ago
  Didn't XLNX turn into AMD directly at some fixed rate?
  - kgwgk 5y ago
    The exchange rate was not an integer. If you have to receive a fractional number of shares it’s rounded down and you get a cash payment for the rest.

firecall 5y ago

I have first hand experience of an Australian ASX company being taken private: In that Instance it was decided by a share holder vote after board negotiations. Then you get a cheque for the money once it's agreed and gone through. Happens very quickly with no fuss. All very efficient. And that's that. I wonder if the NASDAQ or similar in the US requires a share holder vote?