Quote:The mgt is not involved in the Offer. The Offeror is the substantial shareholders.
Not quite sure if you mis-read. I said "management of the offerer ..."
Quote:Nobody is asking to be fairly treated. Minority shareholders are asking for a fair price that reflects the potential value.
Don't quite understand. Yr first line says nobody is asking to be treated fairly. Your second line says minority is asking for fair price -- contradicting your first line.
Quote:If Offeror not willing to pay at fair price, then let the company continue as it is.
The offerer has put up a price. If the (minority) shareholder thinks the price is low, he/she can don't sell. IF a (minority) shareholder sells at the offered price, this means that the offer price is acceptable to the shareholder.
Quote:How the takeover is funded is irrelevant to the target company minority shareholders.
I am not viewing from the target company minority shareholder. I am saying from the viewpoint of shareholder of offerer i.e the opposite side.
Yes, there cld be information asymmetry that leads to the offerer concluding that he is bidding at less than the underlying value. And it should be so --the bid offer shd be lower than underlying value from the offerer viewpoint--, if not, why should the offerer bid in the first place?
Personally, I find the concept of 'fair price' as a very subjective thing. What is fair may depend very much on one's reference point. If I buy Cap mall asia at $1.20 , I may find the offer of $2.25 very attractive. If I buy Cap mall asia at ipo price, I may find the offer of $2.25 disgusting. Or if I think the RNAV of Cap Mall asia is $3, I may find the offer of $2.25 unfair.
If I am the target company minority shareholder, it will be more beneficial for me to think in terms of what's the most profitable course for me to take. Should i sell, hold, vote no to the offer etc?