Q: Hi 5i,
The Baytex/Raging River transaction reminds me a little of the attempted merger of Dennison Mining and Fission Uranium, although there are some obvious differences too. In the latter, the FCU shareholders stepped up, voted against the merger, and the deal died, despite Fission management’s apparently supporting it. How likely is a similar scenario to play out with RRX? It may not always work this way but one might have thought that, if the proposed deal is so terrible for RRX shareholders, then it is really good for BTE shareholders. Yet BTE’s share price actually dropped more percentagewise than RRX’s did on the day. Were BTE shareholders really that enamored of the leverage that comes with a lousy balance sheet, and quarter after quarter of losses, that they didn’t want to accept the burden of higher quality, profitable assets? Finally, is it possible that this bad deal for good assets is being presented in order to force the hands of other potential buyers? And, in any event, how likely is someone else to look at it and say: Well, we can do better than that and still have it be accretive on an earnings and cash flow per share basis. (?) Thanks!
The Baytex/Raging River transaction reminds me a little of the attempted merger of Dennison Mining and Fission Uranium, although there are some obvious differences too. In the latter, the FCU shareholders stepped up, voted against the merger, and the deal died, despite Fission management’s apparently supporting it. How likely is a similar scenario to play out with RRX? It may not always work this way but one might have thought that, if the proposed deal is so terrible for RRX shareholders, then it is really good for BTE shareholders. Yet BTE’s share price actually dropped more percentagewise than RRX’s did on the day. Were BTE shareholders really that enamored of the leverage that comes with a lousy balance sheet, and quarter after quarter of losses, that they didn’t want to accept the burden of higher quality, profitable assets? Finally, is it possible that this bad deal for good assets is being presented in order to force the hands of other potential buyers? And, in any event, how likely is someone else to look at it and say: Well, we can do better than that and still have it be accretive on an earnings and cash flow per share basis. (?) Thanks!
