Is It Fair On The Minority Shareholders?

Reply to posting: How Badly Does The Minority Wants Takeovers?

• solomon said...
  
  I guess from the minorities, it depends on their stock entry points and whether the stock has the potential to grow. All in all, whether a fair deal is envisaged?
  
  I am pretty "sure" a banker want more revenue which likely to come abt here via the major shareholder privatisation move. Nonetheless, historical records do suggest that minorities are not equally treated as it intends.
  
  For eg, if I am allowed to hold on the old MAXIS stock til now, does it mean that I could access to the jewel AIRCEL growth?? The recent listing of MAXIS without the jewel only give some the bitter feelings that are they being peel off in the certain regards.
  
  Obviously, when we have different goals we will made the different statements. Looks like we have one here, between a minorities and a banker.

Soloman,

Yeah, the banker. I wonder for whose interests?

Anyway on Aircel again.

How did Maxis managed to grow Aircel? Where did the funding come from? If I am not wrong, was it not from Maxis Communications. The old listed Maxis.

And would you not say the minorities HELPED fund the development of Aircel.

How was Aircel doing? Was it poor?

Nope. According to the horse's own mouth, it is growing at "one million new subscribers every month. We now have about 26 million subscribers," See posting here

So what's the implication now that Maxis relisted without Aircel.

Does the minority feel abused and mistreated?

Now let's look back at the minorities.

Lets no one forget that despite the name 'minority', these are shareholders and the last I checked my dictionary, a shareholder is a part owner of a company.

So why does anyone wants to be a shareholder? Do you think one would buy a share and be a long term shareholder for a 20% gain? Would a 20% gain even compensate the risk of the markets?

Yes, bear market crashes the stock but with owners taking the cheap excuses after a crash, such as the market is not valuing their stock correctly and that the stock is not loved and to use this excuse to privatise the stocks at a low price stinks doesn't it? Yes, current facts shows that some major shareholders are willing and wanting to delist the stock at the expense of the minorities. So would the threat of delisting be consider as yet another stock market risk!

So from a minority shareholder point of view, why do they have to endure yet another risk? Fair game? Yeah life is fair but only if you are the major shareholder.

Lastly, a minority shareholder buy a stock, say at 1.00. Why? The shareholder thinks the stock should be worth at least 4.00. And because he/she feels the reasoning and the justification is valid, they are willing to take the risk to be a shareholder. Now after enduring the ups and down of the market, the shareholder gets hit with a privatisation offer of 1.50 for the stock. Yes, a 50% gain is a gain but is it a fair and fully compensated gain in the eyes of the minority shareholder who feels strongly that the stock is worth 4.00? Surely the feel short changed yes?

Yeah, despite being not fair, the minority shareholder actually have a great option. Yes they can avoid these such shares like plague.