It's not " immoral" for a major holder, or any holder, for that matter, to voice their opinion, and/or advocate for what they want to see happen with "their" company. I certainly hear, loud and clear, that you resent me, and you have every right to. But being in the stock market is about making money. It's not about engaging in would-have-beens and could-have-beens.
I'm not sure exactly what you think Emmis is worth, or could be worth, but I do know one thing, and it's very simple: if given the opportunity, I'd rather get the chance to swap EMMS out at 2.40 or higher, in the relative near term, for the chance to buy ETM at $5. But I'm guessing you are not sophisticated to understand the concept of relative value.
Finally, while I don't necessarily believe my comments in Inside Radio were market moving (based on today's relatively light volume), they certainly could be, or could have been, so, I have appropriately adhered to standard of not buying or selling any EMMS stock, for 2 full trading days after the release of that info.
Perhaps you can explain to me what "reverse" insider trading is. I simply bought a bunch of stock, because I thought the Street was missing the story, and then explained how and why they are, in my opinion, missing the story. I also should point out that my support for a revisiting of a buyout offer is conditioned upon a normal oversight process by a Special Committee, including the obtaining of a fairness opinion.
I suspect your main objection is that you are living in a dreamland, bought this stock at $10, and don't want to accept the fact that any reasonable notion of obtaining "fair value" means you have to face the fact that you will be subject to taking a significant loss.
I'd love to know what kind of buyout price would be "fair" in your mind. The fact of the matter is, the public market values of radio stocks are instructive in some regard. And they are now dramatically lower, overall, from when the CEO previously offered 2.40 for EMMS. That certainly will play some role in what he would be willing to offer (assuming he has any interest whatsoever in making another run at the company....he may not). And as someone who previously objected to that price, I thought the public, and the company, should both be informed that I have changed my position...based upon the changed circumstances. I make absolutely no apologies for that.
You are right, I first bought this stock when it was 17 and sold it at 19. I got out of it for a few years and started buying down. My current position will allow me to more than double my money at $2.40. Like you, I have alot of common shares. I didn't buy back in to make a quick buck, but rather to invest in a moral company whose stock value was undervalued. I like Jeff and the values of his company. I would like to see it stay public and grow. Don't think it will ever go to $10 though. I don't think a mere 3% of common shares will have any effect on the sale of this company. Now if those were preferred shares it would mean something. Power to the real longtime followers.
Well, 3% isn't huge, but it might be the largest unaffiliated individual holder. (Are you larger?) It is also fairly significant in the context of the fact that said shareholder (me) was formerly against a going private transaction at $2.40, and would currently support it....based simply upon CURRENT trading values for stocks in the radio space.
I'm not sure why you are so "wed" to EMMS. The fact of the matter is, is that ETM at $5 would be more attractive to buy, than EMMS at $2.40. It's as simple as that. You'd rather sit on this thing for 1-2 years, for the potential of $3-5? I can think of a whole host of better things to do with the money...if given the chance to cash out at $2.40, in the next few months.
If Jeff wants it at $2.40, he can have it, as far as I'm concerned (again, as long as radio stocks continue trading at the depressed levels they currently are).
But you're right: My 3% will not decide that. But it might INFLUENCE it. Which was the whole point of my public statement.
Barring that, I'd like to see the Street start to give EMMS some of the credit it deserves, for strengthening the balance sheet. The stock is totally misunderstood, I feel, especially after the "monetization," or semi-monetization of the 3 FM stations (and now, the announcement of this deal with Zell to help fund discounted preferred stock buybacks).
Maybe he objects to the possibility of being **compelled** to sell--even at a price significantly greater than the prevailing market price.
Any management buyout of a company that forces some public shareholders to sell at prices lower than those at which they would freely have chosen to sell is, in my opinion, an erosion of property rights.
Well, it may be "an erosion of property" rights, but would you allow one guy holding 100 shares to PREVENT a going private transaction (or any transaction), if he didn't want to sell?
What's your standard? And what's your principle?
As it stands now, speaking generally, if 50% of shareholders support any deal, it goes through, pretty much. And those that object can pursue their appraisal rights in court. Seems fair to me. As long as there is also a Special Committee process to ensure an arms-length evaluation of a transaction. And assuming that Special Cmte. is acting in a bonafide fashion, of course.