I agree with slocketer, you should be able to choose if if you agree to sell the shares, especially when ownership can change hands, this also should be considered for hostile bids, if a person wishes to hostile, sure than let him offer, if the investment funds wish to shell their stake fine but I am forced to let my stake go just because someone bids. thats rediculous, it's my stake so I don't get it. It amounts to taking when you should have sovereign rule over your share holdings. That is how hostile bids work, not the sc version. The only way a bid is hostile is in a truly pub, when a minority share stake will still gain you control, but if i own 100% or say evn 85% or 51% a hostile bid should be non existant, because I have to choose to sell, the bids are cool, people should be able to place a bid, but acceptance of the bid should not be automatic, the pps gained from the bidding price should be reflected if investment funds wish to make a pro
W
Wendy (Little Upsilon)
All worlds
I 'm polling that
G
Gen. Wallace (Little Upsilon)
All worlds
I agree, I don't want someone buying all my stock and then taking it over. That's why I don't have any stock out. Otherwise, I would not be in debt because I would get the revenue from them. Instead I have to keep my stock as is because of fear of loosing my corporations.