[vaudine]

I am in the dark here about takeovers when the company doesn't want to be taken over. I am totally in favor of free markets and capitalism in so far as I understand them; however, not being a financial guru, I have been troubled in the past 2 or 3 decades about hostile takeovers. How are they any different from the govt. swooping down and taking over? Shouldn't the owners/investors be able to decide whether or not to sell, restructure, etc.?

Anyone who understands how hostile takeovers work, please explain. Also, do you know if Bain was into hostile takeovers. I think probably so--at least some.

Mitt isn't it for me, and not for his money and flip flops, either. He just comes across as passionless, uncommitted, and awkward. I also resent his being pushed by Rove, Foxers, Coulter, etc. On the other hand, Paul could NOT win. He comes across whiney and looney in spite of his fiscal frugality--Kucinich??? Looney!.

vaudine

[danielmryan]

I have been troubled in the past 2 or 3 decades about hostile takeovers. How are they any different from the govt. swooping down and taking over? Shouldn't the owners/investors be able to decide whether or not to sell, restructure, etc.?

Hostile takeovers are bids for the shareholders of a public company to voluntarily - repeat, voluntarily - hand over their shares at a certain price. They're "hostile" from the standpoint of management and the board of directors, not from the standpoint of the shareholders. The shareholders own the company.

Since they're offers for shares, hostile takeovers are impossible for a single-shareholder corporation or a corporation where management and/or the board own the majority of shares. Any takeovers of those companies have to be friendly.

[pas]

The owners are selling. The board and current management don’t want the sale because in many cases they are not getting their golden parachutes. But the majority shares of the stock are sold so the board is forced out and managers are forced out.