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
