Why Would kike Pay so Much for Media Empire?

We use our framework to calculate that the market estimated that Viacom, the eventual “winner” of the takeover battle, overpaid by more than $2 billion when it agreed to purchase Paramount in a $9.2 billion acquisition in February 1994. The market estimates appear to be reliable in that market prices did not revert in the three years following the acquisition. This overpayment occurred despite the fact that Sumner Redstone, the CEO of Viacom, owned more than 75% of the Viacom’s cash flow and voting rights.

These results have two possible (and not mutually exclusive) interpretations. The first is that Redstone’s beliefs were different from those of the market. The unwillingness to revise those beliefs in light of the market reaction is strongly consistent with the argument in Roll (1986) that “bidding firms infected by hubris simply pay too much for their targets,” as well as papers that stress managerial overconfidence such as Heaton (2002) and Malmendier and Tate (2002). The second interpretation is that Redstone received large private (and non-pecuniary) benefits from the acquisition. Perhaps he wanted to be the “king of all media.” This is strongly consistent with theories in which private benefits drive managerial decision making over and above pecuniary incentives.

What is the Price of Hubris? Using Takeover Battles to Infer Overpayments and Synergies
Pekka Hietala, Steven N. Kaplan and David T. Robinson
March 2003
http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/steve...search/hkr.pdf

[Antiochus Epiphanes]

they're looking at it in terms of net worth. net worth and cash flow are two different things. control is yet another. with control come a thousand opportunities for self enrichment only a narrow portion of which are the subject of all these numerous SEC filings and so forth.

there a thousand ways to screw the shareholders, and sumner owning 40-x% of Viacom can do pretty much whatever the fuckall he wants, even if it means diluting the per share value, who cares, so long as Sumner makes out better in the end.

Some types of theft are so hidden, so hard to find, so hard to prosecute, and yet so clever and so large they would boggle the imagination of a normal piker.

maxwell was another bloated spider of a media magnate sitting for years atop an insolvent enterprise, looting pension fund to finance his intelligence activities for the bandit state of izrahell and hence his own fat ego.

Originally Posted by Antiochus Epiphanes

there a thousand ways to screw the shareholders, and sumner owning 40-x% of Viacom can do pretty much whatever the fuckall he wants, even if it means diluting the per share value, who cares, so long as Sumner makes out better in the end.

True, far worse outside the US than in. E Asia is most notable for expropriating minority shareholders, and Germany's Neuer Market is evidence that there is some investor concern about what we consider "abuses." But the fact that this was a stock deal may well have reduced Rothstein/Redstone's room for corporate hijinks of this type. So one can't characterize overpaying by $2 billion (with 3/4 of his own money) for a media property as merely a shrewd business decision. Indeed, given his initial concentration of assets in this sector, agency theory predicts his purely personal economic interest would have been to diversify his holdings into completely unrelated investments. The question thus remains what "private (and non-pecuniary) benefits" might a kike derive from controlling a media empire. Hardly uncommon, so there must be a reason.

[Antiochus Epiphanes]

well FS that was my hard answer. now the easy one...

the easy answer, is he is a culture destroying kike of titanic proportions who has money to burn in order to deepen his destruction.

considering that MTV has single handedly demolished young people's natural taboos against homosex and miscegenation, via countless repetitions of the themes, I wouldnt underestimate the historic impact of rothstein's wickedness.

Originally Posted by Antiochus Epiphanes

the easy answer, is he is a culture destroying kike of titanic proportions who has money to burn in order to deepen his destruction.

Yup, it took him but a year to found the UPN network, prime-time purveyor of hip-hop "culture" with hit shows like The Parkers, about a hideously obese and obnoxious niggeress mother/daughter pair.

From the study it appears Rothstein's initial wealth solely in Viacom was nearly (an illiqiud) $6 billion. I would no more expect someone that rich to engage in pure value-maximization that I would expect Bill Gates' attempts to cure AIDS in Afreaka to produce a larger market for MS software.

Incidentally, I have never seen a takeover study explain how the buyer's CEO gets away with economic value-destruction, whether motivated by agency costs, overconfidence or "private benefits." In this case Paramount got a "fairness opinion" from the kikes Lazard Freres, which in view of the takeover premium, is always something of a lucrative no-brainer. There is nothing in the study about a fairness opinion for Viacom, an independent valuation of the magnitude of the projected "synergies." If CEO's are prone to destroy value through ill-advised takeovers, then do shares trade at a discount to their value if such deals were made more difficult? Or are investors as overconfident in their CEO's as CEO's are in themselves? How cool to be an academic and work 6 hours/week with the rest of the time to explore these questions (and hit on coeds).

[Antiochus Epiphanes]

well that kind of insight would suggest that when mel karmazin left, the share price would have declined, because as a powerful jewish sidekick not entirely on the same page as rothstein, mel could be seen as a voice of reason/greed.

mel's departure happened recently. I dont know if this was the first public news or not, 6-1-4:

http://www.viacom.com/press.tin?ixPressRelease=80354155

this chart compares via stock price against dia, which is an exchange traded fund which indexes the DJIA:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=1y&s...&z=m&q=l&c=dia

in the first half of the year, when Mel was on board, the stock price was higher at all points than it has been since then, post his resignation. That kind of correlates with your observation, yes?

[Antiochus Epiphanes]

maybe the downward trend of that stock which starts at may 1 indicates many people knew or anticipated mel was leaving exactly one month ahead of time and it leaked out and people traded the rumour.

putting in one's internal notice to the company a month ahead of a public announcement seems like a plausible scenario doesnt it?

Fascinating theory, AE. 2 greedy kikes in the boardroom better than one, though zero is surely better still, as in No jews Just Right.

The data would seem to support an inference of insider trading, but I thought that was illegal!

[Antiochus Epiphanes]

Originally Posted by The Final Solution

Fascinating theory, AE. 2 greedy kikes in the boardroom better than one, though zero is surely better still, as in No jews Just Right.

The data would seem to support an inference of insider trading, but I thought that was illegal!

Yes Sam Waksal and Ivan Boesky and Mike Milliken and other famous insider trading Jews must not have known that ahead of time eh? LOL