Originally Posted by
FlyGuy2002
vastly superior offer is subjective. From where I sit it’s not. Capping my share price at $30 which could take many months to years to actually receive doesn’t sound too sexy to me. If your cost basis is say $28 then waiting around to receive $2.00 premium doesn’t sound so exciting. Based on a hypothetical 1000 shares, at todays prices a $30 price is only an $8,000 premium. ULCC only needs to be in the $15-$16 range to make this an even offer. That’s hardly enough for me to be pro B6 with the disruption to personal QOL. And how do we know our BOD hasn’t asked F9 to sweeten the pot? Notice who’s been absolutely silent. Indigo. If this proxy vote is a no, then perhaps indigo has some spare change waiting in the wings to sweeten the pot and put it up for a vote agin? Indigo is many things if not shrewd. Their silence is almost telling. Letting the carnival barkers over at B6 making all this noise could be playing right into Franke’s hands. We go straight up F9 he gets it at the original price. We say no, perhaps they up it. Sitting idly by and letting their dream deal go down without a fight seems implausible to me.
Purchase price of a share of stock has nothing to do with when you should sell. You don’t sell a stock based on its value when you bought it, you sell it based on its current and future value. A 50-100% premium to today’s price is a “good” deal (otherwise the price of the stock would inherently be higher). If you want to make an argument that you think ULCC/SAVE are severely undervalued at their current share prices and SAVE will be higher than $30 (or equivalent if F9 merger happens) 1-2 years from now, that’s a valid argument, but basing a vote on an expected 50-100% ROI in 12-24 months is a bit aggressive, especially with the headwinds this industry/economy is facing.