Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Tamhas, Agree with your conclusion. not your reasoning.
You are right, we do not know where GE is towards its ownership level, but you are totally wrong in saying its I that has a problem with it.
To correct your facts. A while back, I simply made that statement. We did not know how far GE was towards its ownership level. Posters immediately contradicted me, saying that they did, using extensive generic regulatory language to support their position. I then explained how all that regulatory language was subject to interpretation as it did not address tendered shares or informal contingent agreements that might not rise to the level of binding, enforceable and ownership changes which might require a filing. I suspect ge is a lot further than 14% despite the lack of regulatory filings in revokable shares which will not be revoked in light of the weak pps and that all that matters is the ownership level tendered and whether GE accepts
The we don't know is not speculation. we don't. All the rest, including the price is too low, what number of shares ge will accept or what ownership it will accept, (I suspect between 50 and 90% and possibly lower,) how the stock will trade post tender, major shareholders are expecting/planning on higher price, GE will offer more, pps will get to 600 is speculation. Others could have accepted my accurate post but they got on their high horse with documentation that did not even address the issue. Regulatory cites did not address tendered shares or informal agreements and no I do not rely on obscure precedent as one stated nor infinite time as other posted. Blame them, not me.
Next issue. I indicated that I noted that GE might accept less than 90% a lot earlier. Again, was contradicted, and the poster said zzz was first. Could have just left it as who cares?? He got on the high horse, made the issue, not me.
Then I defended my position, citing examples, showing how I did address the issue earlier, that it was even in the offer. Several, including you thought it necessary to falsely dispute that so I again defended my position showing that I made the reference in a post on Sept 13, supporting my initial position. Why did you and others get on your high horse, your "nickers" in a knot on those posts and falsely contradict so often. I simply defended the accuracy of my original post. Let it go. No one addressed the important points and none of the contradictory posts were necessary. Blame them, not me. I defend when on high ground, admit when i'm wrong.
Lastly, on the 600 issue. Others were posting that the offering price was too low, that GE would raise its bid and that it could get to 600. All speculation. In light of the weak PPS and the time passed, a new bid or a raised GE bid is unlikely. Dispute that?? I simply stated that the pps would not get to 600 short term. I was attacked on that, all attack posts omitted the qualifier short term. Now why not note those misrepresenting posts, not my correct speculation that the pps will not soon get to 600. Does anyone really think it will.
So I've essentially agreed with you positions, that most is speculation except for the fact that we don't know, yet you post negatively to me and not them. And I did not see any such link, but could be my technical ignorance. I understand a lot of legal and investment issues and nuances, but am weak on the technical as one poster likes to keep noting about my typing, omitting discussion of the issues.
Mr. Twenton, agree in part, disagree in part.
Agree with your comment on the silence which shocks me and I was wrong about it with the major shareholders, EU and competitors. Its obvious that despite the lack of filings, GE has general consensus with the shareholders and price which is why they are not making noise and no counterbid has come forth.
But where I disagree with you is that the silence portends a higher bid. Why would GE raise its bid when it appears the major stockholders are happy with the price, GE will get a big chunk of shares and probably majority control. That is all they need to achieve their objections Why raise the price especially if they get the chunk of shares I suspect.
Remember over 2 weeks ago when over the weekend you posted that on the upcoming Monday there would be announcement of a counterbid. Still waiting. Think the pricing is a done deal and less than 1 week before tenders must be made in many brokers, this is all we got.
Tamhas you are wrong. You and Charlie cannot even get the alleged earlier poster's name or number right. Charlie first cites zzz than Mr. Trenton. You both cite different post numbers. And no, in the post in question, Charlie did not cite the post number as you allege. How many errors in trying to rebut me?? LOL
You guys sure have a need to try to prove me wrong, even to the point of making things up and misrepresenting what I post.
But as I said in my post citing several of my posts on the ownership acceptance level, I said there were even earlier posts. Besides the fact that the original offer stated that GE could accept less than 90% and hinted that it would, I addressed that issue even earlier.
In post 4502, dated 9/13. I stated that GE could modify the tender terms and that it might get less than 90%. In many other posts in the first part of Sept I also set forth reasons why GE was vey likely to accept whatever ownership it could get because of the advantages But 9/13 I think trumps all of the various posts that you and Charlie could not agree on. Can we now focus on the issues.
The important thing is how many shares will be tendered, will GE accept, what ownership level it achieves and how the pps will trade thereafter. But some are focused on who is first.
Charlie once again you make no sense. You negate your point at the outset. Fist you stated that zzz was first, now its Mr. Trenton? Make up you mind. I also rebutted this exact post. Please stop simply misrepresenting We all knew in the original offer than GE left legal wiggle room to accept less than 90%. That was in the original deal. So we knew from the start that there was a possibility that GE would accept less than 90%. Your point????? I also posted earlier in the game that GE would accept less than 90%, even possibly below 50% and why. I documented that in a post, #4663 and others cited, where I rebutted a lot of your positions in detail. You have not negated any of my reasoning showing where you were wrong.
Yes Charlie, how many shares does/will GE have? Despite the lack of your holy filings, do you actually think that GE has no more than the 14% reflected to date in the filings and Elliot only 8%ish??. I assume you would have shouted any new filings.
And as I posted before, you try to see everything in black and white. That is wrong in corporate deals and you should know that. No you do not know where GE is towards ownership at this point. My reading of all the legal noise that you furnished is that formal deals and binding deals and ownership changes must be disclosed. Not sure if that includes, what Trader calls discussions over wine and red meat. I speculate that GE had discussions with some of the major stockholders and reached a consensus as to what a good price would be and be accepted and leaving them with the option to back out if a better deal came up. This might not reach the filing level but in the absence of a better deal, which we don't have, and a fair price which the market seems to be saying we have, GE will know that it can consumate the deal and get a bunch of these shares. That would not have broken the law, as not binding nor an ownership change, but would have allowed ge to conclude that it had a reasonable chance of getting a good number of shares at that price which is why GE picked it. The lack of price complaints from the existing major stockholders seems to suggest a consensus and acceptance with the price. Otherwise, why no noise Charlie????
Even more significantly, we do not know how many shares might have been tendered by big and little guys and revocation is becoming less likely as the pps weakens. And all your misquoting cannot change the fact that your argument that the price is way too low and that 600 was a possibility is flawed at least in the short term as I've posted and you could not rebut except by trying to pretend the key qualifier, short term did not exist. Now you attempt to negate my early views on this deal.
Do you really believe that, even in the absence of filings, without breaking the law, GE does not have informal, but revocable, promise of more than the 14% reflected in the filings It is unlikely that any of these informal shares will be revoked as the pps hovers around the offering price, and has not appreciated like so many of you believed, including me. The question is, even with the lack of filings, what percentage of ownership has been tendered to GE and what level will GE accept. THen what happens short term to the pps assuming GE does not have 90%.
Charlie, I beg to differ. On GE accepting less than 90% and its reasoning for the tender, depending on what zzz post you reference, I think my 2 cents were first. More misrepresentations of my posts.
While I addressed these issues even earlier, I posted GEs willingness to accept less than 90%, share ownership with us and the 10%ers a lot earlier. Posts 4595,4621, 4635, 4624 and especially 4663 posted on 9/18, 9/19, 9/20 and 9/22, respectively. Post 4663, dated 9/22, addressed to you, rebutting many of you points, was most illustrative. I specifically stated that GE would want more than its existing 14%, would be satisfied with between 50 and 90%, sharing ownership and explained in detail why GE would accept control of Arcam and the advantages it would obtain. I advise all to read this post, 4663. Do you dispute these conclusions?
If you refer to an earlier zzz post or different details, please cite the post in question.
It may have been short covering right after the announcement that caused the pps to go up. With the covering of the shorts accomplished mostly, the pps may be reacting to the offer alone and the absence of new offers causing the market to think the GE offer was good and they are acting accordingly
In short the market may have concluded that the pps is more than fair in the absence of no new bulk orders on the horizon no indication that PW or RR etc. are implementing making EBM parts and their may be a while before GE buys more as the bulk of its existing bulk order won't be delivered till 2017. Just speculation but might explain the weak pps now.
Charlie, I concur, but already outlined the scenario.
The deadline differs depending on the entity involved. With GE its 10/14. With Scott its 10/12. Each Broker may have a different deadline and yes one should contact their broker to see what the deadline might be. I mentioned Scott, BAC has been silent and I bet the deadlines differ. Then there is the bet to be made on an extension which usually happens if GE does not get what it wants. But that is risk.
As I've pointed out, there is no info regarding how many shares being tendered, especially since they are revocable. GE may have an idea if brokers can disclose but that I don't know. At expiration, GE will either have the 90% in which its bound, less than 90% in which case it can decide to accept what it gets (likely) or extend the tender (likely). It will decide whether it got enough to justify the tender and the 90% is just legal protection for them, not us. I bet they will accept between 50% and 90% and get most of the benefits of control. We won't know till GE tells us and the risk is that the pps will go down if GE doesn't accept or if it accepts what it gets and leaves the rest of us on the hook. Also we will have lost our chance at 34/35 short term. I wonder at the float for us remaining holders. Arcam is already low float, GE will have whatever it gets and won't be trading and Elliot et. all will have their 10%ish and wont be trading And a lot of us won't be selling;. So between us, GE and the 10%ers how many shares will be actively traded???
In the short term, I may have made a mistake by not selling all at 34/35. I am still shocked at the silence of all parties and with less than a week to go for some of the broker deadlines, time is rapidly running out. At this point, I doubt if any new offer/obstacle comes into play
Answer: To get 10% and extort a higher pps like its done in several other Swedish merger cases per posts from Mr. Twenton Should have read his posts. Its their MO
Correct me if i'm wrong, but GE can achieve a lot of those goals with 50% or more as I've previously posted.
Put simply with its 14% which effectively prevents anyone from buying it in total, Arcam's value to GE is what it decides it is. Remember, right now arcam's major customer is GE so it has a lot of influence. And despite what others keep saying about big orders from elsewhere, no one was jumping in to make arcam orders and even GE with the one bulk order does not intend to take delivery on most or all of the printers till 2017 so it is not in a big hurry either to buy more.
IMHO, GE would not even be interested in buying arcam at all if it wasn't buying both laser and ebm to get effective control of the 3d printing process. I doubt if it will even give a premium to Elliot to get its 10% assuming it has 10%. Despite the bullishness, look how weak the pps was and how few sales Arcam was making and there was no GE order on the near horizon as it was not taking delivery on even the 10 it bought till 2017. No other major buyers were in evidence. GE has time, did Arcam with the amount of
RD and expansion money needed and the technological and competitor risk.
My comments involve the short term
To one poster, yes the board knows more than we do. That's obvious. And it may have known that substantial new capital was needed, there was technological risk and there was one customer risk as other companies were not suggesting bulk orders at least as far as we know. Heck trader not too long ago posted that GE would not make a bulk buy
Very idle. My impressions
1. If GE gets 50% then no other company can come in and take it over. We don't know if they will, but it is likely especially with the weak pps.
2 If GE holds its 14% no one can take out arcam without GE's permission and depending on what ownership GE might have, even 50% is out of the question. Tough luck Alcoa.
3. Where did Elliot and its interest in arcam come from?. May not even have an interest. Elliot has a history of buying 10% of Swedish companies, arcam is just the last example, and tying to extort a premium. Mr twenton explained this history in a post a while ago.
4. Thought many here thought no one could enter into informal agreements, over wine and meat, that might affect how stock would be tendered???
5. How do you know whether the new company would have an interest or the money to acquire arcam or whether the new company would have Elliot directors which might influence the issue????
My idle speculation now is how many shares will GE get, will it accept those tendered, what ownership will that leave GE with and how tradable will the remaining float be assuming GE has a big percentage, Elliot and others have more than 10% for blackmail per their MO and how will GE act towards whatever percentage they do get assuming they accept the tender For example, after 6 months, when they won't have to share any premium, will they buy more stock from those unhappy with the reduced post tender price. Now those issues invoke a lot of speculation.
Why GE may be happy with 50% to 90% ownership.
I incorporate by reference my other posts on this subject. But to address the specific questions:
Caveat: I know American law and not Swedish
But several points to be made in your thesis.
1. GE can own and control Arcam outright (depends on your definition of outright) by owning 50% or above of the company and controlling the board. Except for minority rights which go to process and not operation, they will be able to control what Arcam does'
2. At least under american law, if they own over 50%, profits and revenue are booked to the parent so yes GE would get the advantage even with 50%
3. With 50% they would be able to design and develop technology with their laser and EBM patents and expertise and combine the best for each individual part as I've already postulated.
4.If GE controls the board they can force a secondary, subject to minority stockholders rights and dilute the percentages.
5. Even if less than 50%, if ge owns a lot of stock they will not be giving money away. They stock will appreciate yielding profits to them. The more stock the more appreciation profit
Bottom line, all of you points are valid and positive. But GE can achieve most if not all with 50% and a lot less than 90%. Moreover while GE obviously wants the most ownership it can get, it is too smart to pay excessive amounts and will not give in to blackmail from those that may hold 10%. Discussed this before
Speculation: why someone might sell below the tender price.
1. Fear that GE will not accept the tender as its below 90%, Trader is right that the pps will collapse and they will be stuck with shares below the current price.
2. Might be afraid of foreign exchange factors that might alter the ADR pps price
3. Might be ignorant of the actual GE ADR price and afraid that the net return to them might be lower
4. Want to get the money now, at a lower commission,and avoid the risk and delay of the tender
All speculative but might explain the action. I only accept #1 and 4. Myself, I've posted what I've done which, with the weak pps, may have been mistaken.
2 big questions though. If GE get 50% and above will they accept the stock and 2 if they accept a percentage of stock and Elliot keeps theirs how will this even lower float affect trading.
So I am the catalyst and not those that keep posting and misquoting what I've said and I should be silent??? I've counted 4 new posts in one day disagreeing with me and misquoting my positions. Why no criticism directed to them?. In any event we shall see who is right shortly.
1. Will the pps get to 600 within 6 months to a year, my definition of short term?.
2 The disagreeing posters, citing a lot of legalese, have said they know how far GE is towards their goal and they have stated that all accumulations, even existing informal contingent agreements, must have been reported. I have said simply we don't know
Since the only filings have shown GE with 14%ish and Elliot with 8%ish, and assuming no new filings within the next week, those that say they know how the accumulation is going per the statutory filings would think these percentage have remained static.
However if I am right, at expiration of the tender, without new regulatory filings. GE and probably Elliot will have increased their percentage ownership significantly. Will be easy to check. I think the accumulation will get GE to 50%, despite the only 14% reflected and we shall see. Now if that is true, does GE accept the tendered shares, including the contingent deals or does it walk away. I suspect it accepts. If I am right GE and even Elliot, without new filings before the completion of the tender will have significantly higher ownership percentages. We shall see, but how many times do posters think it necessary to revisit the issue The facts will be known in roughly a week.
Geez, yet another post tying to rebut my position and failing miserably with misrepresentation and misquoting. I never said there was an obscure legal precedent, I said there may be. And it will not be obscure if it controls tender offers. But also note that there are always legal wiggle issues that determine when filings might be required.
Please read the following with particularity and comprehension as i'm tired of being misquoted and misrepresented.
My statement was that we do not know how many shares GE has towards its ownership goal now or at the end of the offer which is only about one week from now as some brokers close off the tender on 10/12 such as Scott. You guys attempt to refute that statement by simply citing generic legal language. But there is legal wiggle room.
The operative wiggle room set forth in the legalese is that filing must be done when binding agreements are entered into and when ownership changes. This language does not include tendered shares as they are revocable. But with the lack of a counter bid and the weak pps, revocation is becoming less likely especially if Traders theory is correct and the pps will collapse after the tender. In that case most tendered shares and more this last week will be tendered and such tender will not be revoked. It may well be that informal agreements between ge and shareholders which are contingent on GE reaching 90% and/or can be revoked if a higher bid comes in are not reportable as not binding or ownership changes till GE decides to accept or deny
If you continue to disagree, show me why tendered shares and informally committed contingent shares are subject to the filing rules as they are not binding or ownership changes and may well be very contingent. . My bet, given the weakness of the pps and risk is that GE will get at least 50%. Then do they accept or reject????? Why would I waste time researching Swedish case law as it is under a week and GE will get what shares it gets and then decide if it wants to accept or reject the tendered shares if less than 90%
More errors in your post. Case law does not necessarily invalidate the law, it interprets it. Might determine what invokes the binding and ownership provisions of the law and whether a given event invokes the filing rules or my exceptions might apply. That 15% will not happen until and unless ge accepts tendered and contingent shares and we will not know that till expiration . RIGHT??? No one will submit stock till the end so long as the pps is above 285. But if you believe traders collapse theory, if the pps remains weak, many will be tendered at the end. I rest my case.
Yet another post on the 600 issue and posts in general, missing the salient points. So I clarify
1, Charlie you do enjoy posting verbatim generic voluminous legal language and articles. So voluminous that I get lost in the noise and find your point absent. Why not make your point and reference/cite the source and we can go analyze it if the interest develops. Would save a lot of regurgitation and space. Speaking of space why add all the stuff at the top which we need to scroll down to get to the postings. It was so much easier when you deleted a lot of the stuff and made accessing the posts easier and quicker.
I understand the terms of use and the moderators position and have restricted my topics here to arcam related, my opinions and addressing misquotes/misrepresentations of what I've said. Once said, let the reader decide with whom they agree. No need to keep bringing up the same topics. Have seen a lot of non arcam related posts, other stocks and personalities not commented on.
2. I agree that a loop is developing. After I made the we will not get to 600 in the short term post, that could have been it, disagree or not. Instead, 2 posters choose to misquote my point and continuing with misquotes/misrepresentations. And in your continuing reference to the 600, you go beyond the long term to the infinite amount of time. Come on. I also note that with less than 2 weeks to go, there is no competing bid and the pps is weakening. Lot closer to 285 than 600 and this is part of the short term period, I.e. about one month. Bottom line, yes in less than infinity the stock can go to 600, 1000 or 285. In the short term 600 is unlikely How many times do we have to rehash this point My opinion and the facts won't change and readers can decide. But please do not misquote. we will see in 6 months to a year.
3 I "go on and on and on..." because you guys keep posting about it. Could have simply read and then agreed/disagreed but you and others seem to have a need to keep raising the issue.
You have noted the operative legal wiggle. No binding deal or ownership change. That begs a lot of issues as I've stated. A gentlemen's agreement or handshake deal may not rise to the level of binding as it is not enforceable and of course does not affect ownership and will not till GE formally accepts the tender at expiration. Heck all such deals may be contingent on GE getting 90% and will not be effective unless that level is obtained. Thus not truly binding and no ownership change till they become effective and GE accepts the stock. That is traditional legal wiggle room and may not reach the filing level Charlie loves reciting, how many times now. It won't be till the end that we will know exactly how far GE has gotten to its ownership goals which is all I've stated.[/b] because nothing will change hands till ge accepts. But the chances of such revocation is reduced by the lack of competing bids and the weakness in the pps where the papa stock is almost down to 285 and arguably the ADRs are below the tender price or close to it.
This post responds to the last posts from Ace, Tam and Charlie. Boy am I popular today.
1. Does anyone disagree by not including the qualifier short term in the series of 600 posts I was misrepresented/misquoted and that an apology is owed????
2. Regarding my comment that Charlie has said that he knows how far GE is towards its goal and whether it may have bought shares before the tender and locked in shares in an informal agreement and that no one knows how many shares have been tendered, read posts 4574, 4572 and 4559. In my post 4572, I addressed Tom's incorrect positions by stating that no one had any idea how far GE has progressed towards 50% and 90% ownership. I noted that we did not know how many shares may have been bought by GE before the tender, how many informal agreements between GE and the shareholders may have been made and how many shares have been tendered to GE. This post was dated 9/16. To this post, number 4574 on 9/17, Charlie replied I say GE didn't. To me this was in response that we did not know how far GE has progressed and implied that Charlie did. You decide, I've indicated my conclusion. All the evidence that was provided was an extensive recital of legal language and not responsive to the question. The language implied that we did know how far GE had progressed. I disagree.
3. TAM, I never said I know anything regarding GE's current ownership percentage and that was the thrust of my 9/16 post. If you are quoting what I said regarding Charlie's comments, wish you had said so.
4. Charlie is the last paragraph of your post to me an implied threat to censor my rebuttal re your omitting short term from your quoting me. I do not think I've been disrespectful to anyone and only defending the accuracy of my post. So why the threat?. But I will admit that I do tend to respond in kind and when the thrust of a post is form and not substance I tend to respond appropriately on the same level. I think that's warranted and why no implied threat to that kind of language??? Or the non Arcam related posts???
5. Ace and Tam, you paint the situation with too wide of a brush. I am no expert in Swedish law but am familiar with legal wiggle language. I stand by my comment that no one knows how far GE is towards the 50% and 90% desired ownership levels. Other than simply reciting generic legal language, no one has rebutted this point except for Charlie implying that he does know.
Now in rebuttal I note: Yes given the 14% filing we know how much GE bought before the tender. But if this was in America we would not know of any informal agreements that might have been made. I am unfamiliar with Swedish law or court interpretations of that law which may have modified the language. But I would not be surprised that GE, before the tender, discussed the mattes with the Board and major stockholders and reached a broad consensus on what price would get the job done. They would have been stupid not too and GE is not stupid. The 285 must have come from someplace. So GE may have informally locked up some shares at that price which does not, as yet each the level of a filing. For example, maybe a report would not be needed till the shares are formally tendered and accepted. Likewise we do not know how many shares have been tendered.
While they may be revoked, it still gives GE an idea of how many shares they might expect Even more importantly, as the pps weakens back to the tender price, and no new deal is forthcoming, the tendered shares may increase and not be revoked as many parrot Trader's fears that the pps will tumble after the Tender if no new bid is made. And obviously a competitor coming in with a higher bid would upset all the options, but with less than 2 weeks to go, such an increased bid is unlikely. Do you not think most will tender and not revoke if they agree that the pps will collapse after the tender?.
Anyway those are my comments. I stand behind my no 600 in the short term and my statement that no one knows how far GE is towards ownership and have not seen any persuasive rebuttal to those conclusions, all these new posts not withstanding. The falling pps suggests a big tender
That is an interesting wrinkle in Swedish law and IMHO almost insures that ge will not buy any shares on the open market till it gets a sense of the amount of Shares being tendered.
You have said that you KNOW how GE is progressing towards its 90% goal. Please let us know how far GE has got, how many shares have been tendered and or informally locked up. Please share you claimed knowledge with us
Now as I've posted before, I am curious to know at the less than 2 week mark how far GE has progressed towards its 90% goal which no one that I know of knows at this point And if less than 90% at expiration, what percentage of ownership will GE accept
Additionally, how long does the above law apply?. I think I've heard 6 months. Which means after 6 months, GE can increase its ownership on the open market towards 90%. Obviously though, if Elliot/others as a block own 10%, GE will never reach its 90% goal unless they pry shares away from them.
Yep, will respond when one of my posts is attacked, misquoted, misrepresented or falsely disparaged. Do you blame me??? Will also add my two cents when an interesting point is made or comment on an interesting happening. But do so with reasoning and references and don't simply copy stuff verbatim.
Tom, more form over substance?.
You misquoted/misrepresented me by leaving out the qualifier short term which makes the point substantially different.
FRIEND??? I spell it friend and did so in my post. How I type it can and does differ from time to time, LOL If all the substance you have is to disparage my typing skills, that doesn't say much.
Would you have preferred terms parrot, repeater, adder on or other such term to denote you tendency to simply repeat and/or regurgitate another's post without adding anything of substance yourself. That is your history as readers well know.
Predicting: You are wrong. Some here have predicted, suggested, hinted, implied or what other term you wish that arcam's valuation should be/can be 600. I simply said that prediction, hint or whatever term you wish is flawed in the short term based on the recent pps action. Show me how arcam would more than double in the short term.
For your information a few years is not short term and I, who have been quite bullish, agree that 600 can happen assuming no technological deterioration like Trader has suggested or lack of resources, etc. But 600 will not happen short term which is all I said but you and charlie felt the need to misquote/misrepresent what I said twice and continuing.
Again all form, no substance. As typical, does not add much except takes up space. Attacks my typing and suggests its spelling and misquotes me twice, not much to garner respect. Maybe parrot is the best description term.
The Arcam to 600 issue
Charlie/Tom, you are inaccurate and misrepresent the 600 comment you both thought worth posting your disagreements with. Since the quote you disagree with is mine, I respond.
1. Charlie, you and your friend Tom are no better than politicians in misrepresentation and misquoting in order to try to make a point. I expected better at least from you in supporting your disagreement. The other simply repeats what you say, using form (typing skills) rather than substance (articulate reasoning).
No one is more bullish than I am on Arcam as everyone here knows, rebutting all those bogey men posters misrepresenting Arcam's position in the market. However in trying to support your posts that arcam would reach 600, you omit my full quote which was that in the SHORT TERM arcam would not get to 600. Your only rebuttal was with the noise of past data, pretty graphs and speculation of trend continuation. You showed that in the LONG TERM it might get there. I agree. But that is not short term
Does anyone here, given arcam's weakness the last year, think arcam will get to 600 in the short term ????? If so, other than speculating that past numbers might hold true in the long term future, explain how.
2. Charlie, we are now less than 2 weeks till the expiration of the tender. You have said you know where GE is towards its goal, attempting to contradict one of my posts that no one does and you documented that by citing a lot of regulatory rules that showed nothing.
Now lets see you support you statement. How many shares has GE informally locked up, how many shares have been tendered to GE, how many shares has GE or Elliot bought on the open market?????? We all will be interested for you to tell us how many shares GE might have towards the 90% which you said you know. Lets see your documentation. So far all you have supplied is a huge list of brokers buying stock (for who) and some data suggesting GE has 14%ish and Elliot 8%ish. Now what are the up to the minute numbers you have said you know. Does anyone believe that with 2 weeks to go these numbers have not changed???
3. Tom, you attacked my typing skills, implying they are spelling limitations. As usual, form over substance. Just like when you attack posts for not being Arcam related then going on a host of non arcam tangents, many not valid. I freely admit to typing limitations and sometimes fail to correct them all. But like your confusion over short term vs long term don't confuse typing for spelling limitations. Did I get most of my typing errors corrected like expiration???? LOL
4. We are now within 2 weeks of the expiration of the tender and the pps is weakening, there are no counter offers, EU antitrust noise or other suggestions of competition for arcam.
Readers where is the catalyst for arcam 600 in the SHORT TERM. Lets see the documentation for attacking my post that 600 in the short term is not likely. Remember how weak Arcam was before the tender, its pps at that time and the trending of the pps. Does anyone think a quick doubling and more was in the wind???? Heck, the pps is almost down to 285, not up to 600
Does anyone think my posts that 600 in the short term is unlikely warranted such posting disagreements????
Unbelievable.
Cleos, the 60% example may well come to pass. However, that would give GE the board majority and while the Board has fiduciary duties to the minority which differ by the amount of ownership GE will have, the board will emphasize what GE wants and they will pick the managers who will operate arcam to the satisfaction of GE. They just won't disclose their marching orders and will be subtle in their bias towards ge wishes and there is nothing wrong with that. Majority rules with certain minority protections.
Other than FAA requirements to join multiple supplier programs, I do not see a lot of disclosure or cooperation amongst competitors. The key is did GE buy arcam to make profit in which case it will make machines and price them to satisfy competitors. Or did they do it for strategic reasons, in which case they might refuse to sell to competitors or design and price them to be unattractive. That is their call. But if strategic, they will not disclose that intent obviously so as not to anger government and competitors. We shall see how that shakes out. But Arcam sure hasn't disclosed its competitive secrets even to us. At best companies buy the printers and they play with them, although arcam has provided assistance. This will be minimized if GE bought for strategic reasons. Acam will only help Avio and other GE entities.
We won't know if GE plans Arcam to be profit or strategic, but it is clear that competitors, stakeholders and the EU have been silent.
Tam, absolutely right. As I said in my post, if GE does not get the 90%, I expect them to go though with the Tender, taking whatever shares might be offered. If over 50%, they run the company to their benefit and the detriment of competitors as I've posted multiple times. Might even be happy with less than 50% as I stated below.
I also agree that the pps will eventually rise for the bullish reasons I've posted multiple times, including GE big orders and the advantages of GE's clout and pocketbook. BUT, immediately after the tender, with no increased bid, the pps might well go down in the short term (I don't now and playing like you by holding my remaining shares) giving us a chance to take the premium now and then buy back after the hoopla ends
As I stated, after experiation, the pps will either go//stay up (HOLD) or go down (should have sold and then buy back) and I don't now for sure, unlike what some claim, which way the pps will go I can guarantee you however that in the short term it will not go up to 600. LOL
What has shocked me is the lack of media noise, from competitors, stockholders or the EU Heck, even Elliot, which is making a play, is silent. this has caused the pps to go down and raised question marks for me. If the pps goes down in the short term, or does not get back to 35, then I made a mistake in not selling all. We shall see but the pps action and lack of noise has shocked and disappointed me.
Tam/Cleos, tam is right as far as he went on the tender offer. Ge picked 90% ownership due to Swedish law as that gives them the power to force the sale of the remaining 10% and obtain complete ownership However, as GE said clearly in its offer, it retains the option to accept less than 90% of the company and will have basic ownership with any percentage over 50% and I think for the reasons I've specified GE will accept less than 90%. How much less is up to them but I would not even be surprised if it accepts even less than 50% as it will give then influence, prevent anyone else from buying the company and allow then to continue buying with time. GE probably will not get the 90% because companies like Elliot have probably already own 10% in an attempt to extort a premium from GE. That is their MO.
Where I disagree is how best to play the tender if GE does not get the 90%. In such a case GE will continue to trade and as TAM said the market will dictate the pps.
You guys know I've vey bullish on Arcam. However, if GE does not get its 90% the stock may well go down to its pre tender price for the short term. The market may decide that GE will not raise its offer, be happy with the percentage offered or walk away and the stock will go below 285 for the short term. In which case we will loose the premium. Ditto if GE gets the 90%, don't tender, loose premium.
One of 2 things will happen. The price will say above 285 in which case its right to either sell on the market if you can get the price you want like some of us did with part of the shares at 34/35 or if ge does not get the 90% and the stock still trades hold for a higher amount. Or the pps goes down and we loose the premium at least at fist.
TOM, the language is obviously standard legal wiggle language.
its meaning is obvious. GE retains the option to accept less than 90%, that it has the option to extend the terms and to be honest it means that it can change any of the terms it decides to complete the deal. You did not understand that a company desires to legally keep its options open????? I've already posted what I think will happen if GE gets less than 90% which I suspect. The question is how low of an ownership level it will accept and a suspect for reasons specified it will be a lot less. The only issues it cannot waive to complete the deal involve regulatory approvals but even there they have wiggle room to alter the terms or divest to suit them. i
Charlie, your being so black and white.
1. Does Elliot NEED 10%. Of course not, no one NEEDS anything in this kind of deal, but depriving GE of 90% would avoid the forced sale and delisting.
But I think Elliot WANTS[color=red][/color] the 10% so they can singly exert influence and try to extort from GE a premium. They can't utilize the same power if they can't give GE its wanted 10%
2. I have postulated that GE will not get the 90% for reasons i've already specified. BUT I've also opined that GE may will be happy with ownership of between 50 and 90% and may even be happy with even less than 50% as it will give it influence, accepting all shares tendered.
3. Despite your claim that you know how close GE is to the 90%, disputing a comment I made in a post, it is clear that you don't as you don't know how many shares GE may have an informal agreement with, how many shares have been tendered and how GE deal making is going. Did it informally lock in a number of shares at the tender price and if it did not it was not very smart to initiate the tender at that price. Most companies reach informal agreement with major stockholders before making a tender.
4. At this point the matter is in a state of flux. Many posters have sold all/part of their shares in the high 34s and 35s and do not agree with you that the pps will get to 600. But at the expiation time, 3 things will happen: GE will have its 90%, GE will not accept less than 90% and decide not to extend and the pps will drop probably below 285 and may take time to recover or GE will accept less than 90%, not extend the offer and those not tendering will loose the 285 and must await the stock recovering, meanwhile the money is tied up.
And since the tender is revocable, some may tender because they are not sophisticated or may tender to insure their getting some premium over the prior pps and will revoke the tender if the pps remains above 285 or accept the tender if they think the pps will go done as GE either walks away or accepts the amount of shares tendered causing the rest to go back down to what it was before the offer. Some will not want to loose that premium and if GE gets less than 90% and the stock continues to trade they can buy back at a lesser price assuming the pps does go down after the tender.
5. Why keep asking me the same question. I've opined that GE will not get 90%, but will get between 50% and 90% and will probably accept that ownership position. GE just wants control to protect themselves and exert control over competitors.
6. Once again you post a lot of articles and non responsive comments but don't address the issues at hand: Why no complaints from shareholders about the price, why no complaints from competitors, the EU and why is Elliot silent as they are buying shares in both companies. Don't know if you've ever been involved in tenders before but usually if the price is low, and you have mentioned 600, competitors and shareholders go to the media and try to exert pressure for a higher price. Hasn't happened here. Why?. And none of those articles and you comments address those questions.
Charlie, are they buying for their own account or diffusely for a multitude of clients?. Will this get them to the 10% in Sweden. Has Elliot bought any more?. I'm surprised they didn't rapidly get to 10% then talk down the tender to prevent tendering
Looks like SLM is getting better action. PPS higher, Elliot has over 10% but in Germany do they need 15% to have clot??.
Now with the tender almost half way, I'm still shocked at the lack of counter bid, price complaints and the pps weakness.
At this point will there be a counterbid, how many shares will GE get and will the pps get up to 35 and beyond again or did I misplay it?. Any comments/opinions. Sadly, it appears that most think SLM is the better play simply looking at the pps action. The quietness of all players is not what I expected
Not sure about Traders Arcam's q3 ER speculations. IMHO
1. Why assume q3 will be bad?. Given the bad q2 ER, perhaps orders slipped into q3 and q3 will be good. Conversely, maybe buyers are concerned about the ge tender and affecting supply, and the GE buzz increased orders rather than decreased them as you propose to lock them in before GE controls..
2. Regarding the q3 ER itself, there might not be one. The tender offer may have been completed, ge owns the company and arcam decides not to post 3q ER or have a cc IF the tender is in the final stages, because of an extension, Arcam may postpone the ER till the dust settles.
In any event, the only outsider that knows about the q3 earnings are not you, its GE that has had access during their DD and may actually affect the results to affect the tender.
Bottom line, by the time earnings are scheduled to be disclosed, the tender deal may be completed or extended because it is almost completed. Any reaction to the earnings may well be moot as the dust has settled and it will not affect the offer or cause more actions either way as you suggest. You need to look at the timing before speculating that an event will be a catalyst either way
I put my money on the scenario that the dust will have settled by the time of the ER and your speculations as per usual are flawed. The only exceptions will be if GE gets a lot less shares than I suspect or a hot counter bidder comes in and then it will be those events rather than the ER that will be the catalyst. What thinks you readers?.
Charlie, thanks for all your hard work and streamlining on this board. IT makes it easy to use and navigate and very informative .
I agree with your assessment on GE's long interest in Arcam and was posting about it in 2013 and 2014, especially with the 8/14 Avio technology announcements. Like with Rene, i'm impressed with the vision, strategy, timing and EXECUTION of GE. That's why I was so amused by some posters who shouted that GE would not make any bulk oders, that the LEAP engine had left the station, that composites would trump EBM, that arcam was in trouble because of the lack of sales PRs, etc etc. etc. GE was simply waiting for 3d production to near before it made its move. And while I am surprised GE outright bought a OEM manufacturer it showed brillance by buying BOTH laser and EBM so that it can lock up the technology development and timing on both, testing both and deciding which is better for any given part and insuring that the development and timing will be best for it
As far as the deal is concerned, i'm torn between wanting a counter bid and higher price and having ge get less than 90% and keeping arcam and its stock alive so we can profit from it. In such a case, even with the diminished float, hope you and others will keep this board alive and that the stock will be a good trading item. Well be interesting to see whether its worth trading in such a case. I find the board and exchange of ideas stimulating, whether I agree or disagree. I call them as I see them. Sad that some cannot handle disagreement and want to threaten to cut off dissent. Especially, when they do not offer reasoning and analysis which I always try to do when I offer my 2 cents.
Tamhas, thanks for the response. I agree that a counterbid may come late, as I've referenced in my posts. Language such as unless a bid comes or they will act later. But I am still surprised at the lack of noise/complaints from competitors, shareholders or even the EU with 2 major companies being bought by the American GE. Only complaints about the price I've head is from posters here wanting 600. Only possible competitor so far buying is Elliot and they are slow to get up to the expected 10%. In other deals I've been involved in, the complaints and objections have come fast and furiously. We shall see how it plays out but i'll take a nice bigger offer but only substantially above 35 which I could have got. I do think GE is the best fit. But am still a little surprised that it decided on the merger but it went beyond my expectations by buying both laser and EBM which makes more sense than just one and explains why they made this deal contra to my expectations. Just think, GE can control and maximize the benefits of both laser and EBM for each part and control in large part the technology development and timing of the technology with its money and clout. Nice deal
TOM since you put the issue in play again, I will inform you of my prospective and you and others can agree with me or disagree and I will apologize if warranted. Most of your points I will have to agree to disagree with as I think you are being finiky. And if finiky upsets you, so be it as it describes my opinion of some of you posts.
1. Perhaps dead wrong was obsessive and I apologize for it. If it will suit you sensibilities I will use just wrong when I show that a statement is fallacious.
2. I think the references in your last example were warranted given the extent of the inaccuracies I pointed out and how every. time he saw an article referencing a competitor he immediately would post the existence of deadly competition to arcam when they were not even producing the same item.
3. Bald statements. Guess you are ignorant of the term. Bald, not bold, means when a poster simply states a conclusion and does not provide authority or reasoning for such a conclusion. Such as He knows how many shares GE has. Or when anyone simply concludes such as arcam will not have good sales because of the lack of PRs. etc.
4. Hope you don't get attacked was totally justified. You and Charlie have both posted that they don't care about GE's vision or want posts to be resticted to arcam related stuff and yet frequently post non arcam related stuff. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander and if you attack others for that you should not do it yourself and you do. That is not derisive, its noting you hypociticalness. Especially when the post WAS arcam related as I showed.
Guess that addresses the points you made in detail. I've addressed many of these in greater detail in other posts and incorporate them herein by reference.
But I do apologize for my typing and sometimes lack of proofing as sometimes I have time constrains.
Bottom line, I disagree that my posts have been insulting, character assassination or the other adjectives you used. I would appreciate the comments of some others as to whether or why my language offends as I only intend to agree or disagree. And a little humor is not bad. Comments, but not from you TOm who obviously has an ax to grind as is hypocritical, frequently posting non arcam issues and attacking others for doing same.
Perhaps you might address the issues I raise rather than how I raise them.
Now lets focus on the main issues and leave this drivel alone.
Thanks, north, informative and we shall see if history repeats itself. Your earlier example, the pharma company I think was a Mass company but may have been incorporated under Delaware law as well. Was the 90% simply the buyer's choice or did the law convey special rights with the 90%?. In any event, I stick to my original assessment. Remember it is a no brainer if Elliot takes its usual 10%. GE won't get its desired 90% but will get some percentage of ownership and we shall see if GE gets its desired level and what level that is and how it acts. Will it complete the TO if it gets say 70 to 80% as I suspect?? Also whether its worth trading the stock and keeping this board going which I hope it does. I'm torn between wanting more money and GE having to take less than 90% and keeping this board and stock alive for future gains. Not sure how the stock will trade but with GEs clout and money, assuming it continues to sell to all comers, the stock could get a real nice boost but probably not 600 for a while.
It is an interesting game and I still am shocked at the lack of competing offers or complaining about the price. THe only ones expressing unhappiness with the price are posters, some of which are shouting for 600. NOw that will be a gain. But does anyone think GE will offer 600. I do not. Absent a competing offer, don't even think GE will offer more and I will be burned for not selling all above 35. We shall see. But keep the info and discussion coming.
Charlie, easy to make a bald statement which I never do. Please explain how GE will accept the status quo or may accept the current 14%ish is different from the statement you made that GE might be satisfied with their 14.8% position for now. I await you explanation.
More significantly, how is this relevant to my thesis that GE would not accept the 14.8% for now. You add a lot of noise but don't address how the language is materially different nor the thesis that however you phrase it, GE will not be happy with less than 15% and will not be forced to settle for that level whether you tendered or not. Hope you get you shouted 600 as I will also. LOL And you must admit that YOU do not know how many shares GE controls as of this moment. I've explained why you do not.
I'm serious about Arcam as well, have been with it since 2013 and have a lot of money involved. But that does not mean we can't have a little humor without threats of retilation. How were any of my comments to you character assassination, disrespectful, insulting, or any of the other adjectives you and tom used?. I simply state my views as topics arise and look towards an inspired debate and exchange of views which is fully consistent with the goal you cited.
North, you reasoning is flawed comparing apples and oranges.
The TO you refer to was an American company with American rules. 90% ownership does not give it the ability to force the sale of the remaining 10% and force delisting. Elliot used the MO in Swedish TOs, it has not under American law
The deal we are talking about is under Swedish law where the 90% rule is present. Unlike the American situation, in Sweden if Elliot has 10% it can prevent GE from forcing the sale of the remainder and force delisting of the company. So there are significant differences, including additional minority rights..
Even more significant, as I've posted before, based on Twenton's posts, Elliot has done this several times, buying 10%, preventing the buyer from forcing liquidation of the remaining stock and delisting. The example he gave, Canon buying Axis, Elliot bought 10.1%, canon 86% and Canon accepted the 86% despite tender language requiring 90% and is operating Axis happily with Elliot tying up their money and not getting their extorted premium.
Between your example and the Canon example I defer to the Canon scenerio for reasons I've posted elsewhere.
I remain surprised at the lack of a counter offer which may come before expiation, but we shall see. Meanwhile, to repeat again, I expect GE to get between 50 and 90%, not raise its offer in the absence of a counter bid and we shall see what percentage GE settles for.
What do you think ge will settle for, do you expect a counter and if not why are competitors and shareholders silent. Are they happy with the TO price, and not the 600 some here shout for and will the pps appreciate to at least 35 again???? discussion is fascinating despite some who cannot handle any dissension.
You are totally right, but did not because I thought the answers were obvious.
Of course GE wants 90%, it makes it cleaner. But for reasons specified I don't expect it to get the 90%. Reason Eliiot is buying is to get 10% and try to extort a premium from GE. Its their hedge fund MO.
I fully expect GE to extend the TO. Most companies do in like situation. But that begs the question, assuming they don't get the 90% how will GE act. I suspect Elliot and others to lock up at least 10% so extending the TO will be moot.
Absent a counterbid or opposition from stock holders, I do not expect GE to raise the bid. They will not succumb to Elliot extortion like Canon did not in its axis deal and will be happy so long as it effectively controls the company for the reasons specified in other posts.
Don't get me wrong, I still am holding a lot of stock and am now thinking maybe I should have sold all at 35+. I am shocked that there has been no counterbid over 2 weeks into the deal but that is the situation and absent such action why should GE raise their bid. Now if they think a little more premium might do it, maybe, but if Elliot itself owns 10% it won't do any good unless they cave to the Elliot extortion and whatever price they insist on. Hope this addressed you points.
TOM, I fully agree that Charlie has added a lot to this board and has given me new and important information. I've said so and appreciated it.
But as Charlie says, the purpose of this board is to agree/disagree as warranted, hopefully giving reasons and letting readers decide. I hope I've done that. I set forth my reasoning and ideas and others can agree or not. I'm still wondering what is different between Charlies GE will be happy with 14 8% for now and my statements that Charlie said GE would be happy with 14% or GE will accept the status quo for now. My thesis was that GE would not accept that level. Now you can accept/deny my thesis and reasoning but what was so bad with raising the issue and giving my opinion. Any insight??? Was my point flawed???
I have always tried to be respectful, offer reasons for my opinions, and do not attack or insult. Where have I been disrespectful to Charlie, Tom or others than saying I disagree and why. I have frequently complimented Charlie and others, and agreed with them or is it only evil when I explain why I disagree. In my opinion, replying to specific questions with extensive generic legalese is noise. Additionally, the term noise was accompanied by the LOL designation and what is bad with adding a little humor. Was the term noise in this context so bad??
Tom, where did I express contempt, character assassination, ad hominem attacks or contempt. I've tried to be only respectful and have provided reasoning when I agree or disagree and resent the accusations to the contrary. How did I attack anyone?. To sum up, I simply opined and reasoned why some posts were noise, why I do not think that GE will be happy with only 14%ish ownership, why the daily Elliot or other speculative story is not really an issue as we all expect Elliot to get to 10% by experiation date per their MO and why its inconsistent to attack others for non arcam specific posts and then do it yourself. Where have I attacked anyone and does anyone say the above points are not legitimate even if you disagree with them. Where did I attack, show contempt, obscure, reduce the clarity or do any of the other evil things that you accuses me of??? Please specify and i'll abjectly apologize but will continue to offer my two cents.
Tom, I take you veiled threat, and as moderator Charlie has the authority to stifle dissent and disagreement but I think he is a bigger man. I wish anyone would point out how I insulted, assassinated or showed contempt. I apologize for offending anyone. My goal has simply been to agree and disagree as I see it and explain why. That allows readers to pick the opinion they choose.
Finally, to sum up my issues at this juncture. I expect GE to get between 50% and 90% of the stock, am shocked that there ha been no counterbid or opposition except for posters here shouting for 600, expect Elliot to get 10% and play their game and I opine that no one KNOWS how many shares GE has or controls and we will not know till experiation date. It will be interesting to see what level of ownership GE accepts and if not 90% how arcam will trade thereafter. Are those opinions and my reasoning so evil???
Sorry Charlie, must respectfully disagree with several posts.
1. Definition of noise: Since I used the term, my definition illustrates the context within which it was used.
Noise means providing a lot of language, verbage, wording that Is generic and not responsive to the questions asked. Such as providing a lot of regulatory language when the questions were how many shares have been tendered, how many have been commited to ge, how far they are towads 90%, what will they do if they don't get it, etc, etc. Generic legalese is noise to those questions.
2. In response to my point that we don't know how far ge Is towards the 90%, you statement that you do was wrong.
Neither you nor any lay peson knows how far ge is towards its goal nor how many shares it has/contols. With the regulatory filings you admit there is a 3 day lag period at least. Moreover, you have no idea how many shares are being tendered as they are not reported as the tender is revocable nor do you have any idea how many shares may have been informally committed to GE on a handshake. I am sure some have been and we won't know till the expiration nor need they be reported as such commitment is informal. So at any gven moment you do not know how many shaes GE can claim.
3. Ellliot: The exact name of entities holding GE shares is not important. I suspect by the expiation date Eilliot will control at least 10% as that is their MO and even if different entities may own part of the 10% shares that is moot What is releant is that GE won't get the 90% needed to force sale and how GE will react. will they accept less than 90%, I suspect yes, how much less and how will the inteactins play out. Will arcam be worth investing in. That, not the exact names of a filing instrument should be your focus IMHO.
4. You may nitpick the exact quote or language but you essentially said that GE would accept the status quo, 14% ownership and I disagreed. That is not noise, but relevant and specific to the point made.
Depends on the definition of independent. I can easily see a scenerio where GE does not get 90%. So can't force delisting and sell out. But I foresee GE able to get 50 to 90% and at what level will it be happy?. So company may still be listed, trading an even smaller float than now, but it will not be independent. GE will own, control and guide it the way it wants. The rewards will be diluted. With that small float, is it still worth trading?. That each must decide, but a lot of the interest and profit potential will be gone
Since I don't like the other OEMs the only pure play out there , and that is somewhat diluted, is Materialize which has 3d software which will include Sigma's offering. Don't know, will do some DD, but its done nothing since the IPO. Many other stories out there including nat gas as an export, as a fuel, wireless controlling the house and tv and all aspects of life, etc, etc, etc. My successful plays keep getting bought out. For example, wanted to play the medical robot surgical field, intitutive surgical was too expensive, so bought mako and was bought out by stryker Nice profit, but lost the growth play. I have larger established companies which don't provide a lot of stimulation and little ones that give me stimulation like arcam. Problem is, to keep my interest, they must have not only growth but good mgmt and execution. to take advantage of it. So many fail with flawed mgmt. even with a good story. Despite the nay sayers who saw bogeymen and failures around every corner, IMHO arcam had all, hence my interest. was a job though showing up many of the nay sayers who have now finally been quieted with GE's move. Now I have problems with the wild bulls who expect an offer of 600 when there is no competiting bids, arcam had a bad ER and its pps was not near that level. bad positives as bad as negatives if not supported. Enough for now
Charlie, I must disagree with you in large part and agree with you in part.
I've set forth my reasoning in detail in other posts since the announcement and incorporate those posts by reference. I will just reference my conclusion and readers can read other posts for the reasoning.
AGREE: I expected the pps to rise above the tender offer and while I sold some shares at 34.90 and 35+, I had the anticipation of major stockholder and competitor noise and higher bidding. However, such has not happened to date and the pps has weakened. You blithely state that GE's offer was low, that 600 would have been reasonable and that holders should not sell and there is minimal risk. Well the risk is that no new bid will occur and the pps will stay below 35 thus depriving owners of that premium. Additional risk to holding is that no higher offer is made, you don't tender at 285 and GE may not offer you that price or higher after the expiation of the offer. I am shocked at the silence but there we are. No tender, may not get even 285.
So I've held some in case a higher offer comes and sold some to take the premium. While holding is fine, but only part, buying IMHO is not warranted. The risk is no higher bid and the pps goes down further causing losses. I do not anticipate GE offering much more (see below) so if a counterbid does not happen you will probably loose money on the shares bought or make very little. Not worth the risk IMHO.
DISAGREE: You should care about GE's vision as it shows the flaws in you reasoning. You seem to suggest that the only reason for the GE offer is to insure access to the printers and that with 14% they can insure no one buys Arcam and locks them out of the printers and powder. Then GE can insure access to Arcam. NOPE
Read my posts on topic, especially those relating to Nobalmas. Ge does not just want to preclude others buying arcam or insuring access to the product. Their vision is to CONTROL both laser and EBM printers and insure that the design and timing suits their needs and not any others. They want to control the design of the printers so that there needs will be facilitated and to control the timing of developments. They want to see which technology laser or EBM, is best for a given part and then design the printer and part to accentuate that advantage. They may also want to keep the technology out of competitor hands. Despite the opinion of some posters that they cannot keep the technology from competitors and will have to disclose technological info and guidance that is plain wrong as I've opined before. First, arcam does not provide guidance or technological info now so why will they later. Second, GE can deprive competitors access if they wish by not selling to competitors, insure the technology development is suited to them and not others and to set pricing so competitors will not be interested.
Additionally, you suggest that gE will be happy with just the 14% it owns now. NOPE. You are right that GE probably will not get the 90% it desires. But it will not be happy with just the 14% it has now IT WILL BE HAPPY WITH AN OWNERSHIP PERCENTAGE BETWEEN 50% AND 90%, The level will be decided by GE but like Axis and the Cannon deal, Elliot will not be able to extort a premium with just a 10%+ ownership. Ge will let Elliot stew. It is also interesting that per the regulatory filings Elliot does not appear to even have the 10% yet. And despite the lack of filings, I do not believe GE has not gained any shares and that currently it has not added shares despite all that legal language you thought necessary to post I suspect some consensus, maybe informally and not reportable has been reached which explains the lack of noise, and that some will tender shares which will not be revoked.
Bottom line, no one knows, despite your claims, how many shares GE has in its camp as of now or how many will be tendered finally as of expiation date. I suspect it will be over 50% GE will accept some level between 50% and 90%, the higher percentage the better. We shall see what level GE accepts but it won't be just 14% and many shares will be bought by GE contra to your expectations. Guess that addresses the points you made.
Nobahamas, appreciate the additional info on the revolution. Hope you don't get attacked for being non arcam specific. LOL. Since the discussion Is continuing, I'll go beyond addressing one posters correction and give my two cents on the topic itself.
It is clear that we are at the threshold of a major industrial revolution, a sea change in the way things get made. Whether its as broad based as the original one, where we went from individual to mass production of items, i'll leave to history to judge. But it is a potential major change which only a few companies and individuals are embracing. Those that do will be the companies of the future.
GE is far in the forefront of this revolution. While posters are quoting from 2015 articles I can recall articles from GE in August 2014 and before (the new arcam blade process which I posted about at the time) indicating the benefits of new production methods and technology including 3d printing, composites, on time inventory, robots, etc. While GE bought a 3d company in, I think, 2014, and has been talking about 3d for years and actually producing items, other companies are still experimenting with it. Advantage GE and the other companies that have gone beyond the talk and experimentation stages and are gearing up to USE the techniques. That is not arcam which is simply making one tool in the process, albeit an important one, and simply helping those with the foresight to use it to enhance its industialization.
The new industrial revolution is a combination of hardware, software and the genius to combine all the individual tools toward a better production process. Its EBM, laser, composites, new production line design, robots, software, innovative designs and techniques, etc. and the genius of those who can put all that together to implement a better production process. And it is still evolving.
GE brillantly has decided to combine the advantages of EBM and laser. That is the brillance of what they are trying to accomplish. They can then steer the technological advancements of both to suit their needs, pick which is best to produce each individual part and design methodology and timing to suit its needs and whims. It can also, as I've speculated elsewhere, keep this technology both OEM and material, from competitors if it wishes. Now given the importance of software in the process, since it has the OEMs (hardware) locked up, should GE also decide to lock up the best in software?. In this context there is sigma which IF their product works as advertised could go a long way to easing the quality certification process. There is also materialize which is big in more general software geared to the production process and also is incorporating Sigma's product into its own products. If their software is expansive enough to aid in the production process, materialize might be the last factor in GE's design. It is buying the hardware printers, it is building and locking In composite technology and the last block may well be software, Anyone know if Materialize's software is broad enough to satisfy GE's needs or any other software company, maybe SAP, which has the software broad enough to suite GE's needs. Remember GE's coffers are full of the money gained from the sales of its credit entities
That is my vision of the new revolution. And as I've posted since the deal was announced, I've bought some GE to be a part of it. Already have Sigma, thinking of materialize which has done nothing pps wise since its IPO