|
November 30th, 2004 | #1 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Why Would kike Pay so Much for Media Empire?
Quote:
Pekka Hietala, Steven N. Kaplan and David T. Robinson March 2003 http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/steve...search/hkr.pdf |
|
November 30th, 2004 | #2 |
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
|
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. |
December 1st, 2004 | #3 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
December 1st, 2004 | #4 |
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
|
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. |
December 2nd, 2004 | #5 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
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). |
|
December 2nd, 2004 | #6 |
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
|
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? |
December 2nd, 2004 | #7 |
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
|
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? |
December 3rd, 2004 | #8 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
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! |
December 5th, 2004 | #9 | |
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
|
Quote:
|
|
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|