Brilliant beyond words!!!!
Really? This is just rambling. First time I see such poorly constructed corporate document so publicly distributed.
Its hilariously sad, and beyond unprofessional, even if they do merge, as a shareholder I’ll be worried about the way a management like this runs things.
I’m also a shareholder (very small time, but shareholder nonetheless), and I was leaning toward the F9 offer. This is an account that is more of a fun, play with different stocks longer term account, so cashing out was not a priority, but after that particular document by F9, I’m much more up in the air.
I think F9 does a fine job explaining why they think there are regulatory hurdles for the B6 deal. I think those are concerns that do exist. What they do not do, however, is explain why the DOJ won’t have similar concerns for the F9-NK deal. Obviously their argument is that since fares won’t go up, the DOJ will be just fine with everything. I do not believe that to be the case. If you’re attacking B6 for not recognizing the regulatory hurdles, you better be willing to address the issues behind your own bid. B6’s IR documents at least acknowledge the hurdles being mentioned, agree or disagree with what they say about how they address them, they don’t completely pretend the hurdles don’t exist. F9’s document reads the way they accuse B6 of behaving, by hand waving away regulatory concerns. I, personally, would like to have a better grasp on why they think Biden’s DOJ will simply say, “They’re growing, but they’re still cheap, so it’s all good.”
Then beyond the regulatory concerns the rest of the document is nothing. The thing I really want to know is why do they think this offer will be worth more? On the one hand I see a clean $33/share from B6. F9 says their stock prices will rise and make up the difference, but they don’t explain why they believe the combined company will be able to increase stock prices so significantly despite the headwinds they face. I don’t want to just see why B6 is bad, sell me on why you’re good.
And then two pedantic things. First, if you’re going to accuse B6 of being unprofessional and childish, then F9 should’ve be name calling, and childish. I personally think both sides have been real bad on this front, and it’s annoying.
Finally I have my own pet peeve. It’s a very simple thing to fix, but the fact that their IR/marketing/design teams didn’t give any attention the formatting of the document reads as super unprofessional and lazy. It seems pedantic, and I know that this was designed as a webpage that they quick formatted into a pdf, but you gotta look at page breaks on a pdf. If you’re trying to sell yourself to investors, especially institutional investors. It can’t look like crap like this pdf does. Charts should not be split between two pages. Pictures should not be separate from their headers. These are basic things. Like I say, I know it sounds silly, but professionalism in these situations matter. If you half-ass something that you’re using to impress investors now, how can you be trusted to not half ass things in the future when your entire bid is predicated on a stock price increase? It’s not a thing that sways my decision, exactly, but it doesn’t put F9 in a good light. Again, I know it’s designed to read as a webpage, but 2 minutes of clean-up goes a long way on stuff like this.
But substantively I would have much rather seen, “Here’s why we think our stock price will increase, and here’s why we think the DOJ isn’t going to be a problem,” then them reiterating things they’ve already said about B6’s regulatory hurdles.