b****e
发帖数: 460 | | s**********n
发帖数: 868 | 2 Do you know why?
People think they've chosen a worse deal than the original one?
【在 b****e 的大作中提到】
: rt
| b****e
发帖数: 460 | 3 I don't quite understand.
It was trading for more than $26.5 before they broke up with MidAmerica
since French has a new offer with almost doubled price. And then, when they
are moving towards French people think it won't work and price tumbled. At
least one of the them is ridiculous.
It sounds like someone was sitting on a slow train, and there was a fast
train just across the platform at the station waiting for this someone to
transfer to the fast train. And this someone got off the slow train
【在 s**********n 的大作中提到】
: Do you know why?
: People think they've chosen a worse deal than the original one?
| a***x
发帖数: 26368 | 4 简直不能叫deal
【在 s**********n 的大作中提到】
: Do you know why?
: People think they've chosen a worse deal than the original one?
| d*****z
发帖数: 114 | 5 Why do you think EdF's offer is almost doubling BH's?
they
【在 b****e 的大作中提到】
: I don't quite understand.
: It was trading for more than $26.5 before they broke up with MidAmerica
: since French has a new offer with almost doubled price. And then, when they
: are moving towards French people think it won't work and price tumbled. At
: least one of the them is ridiculous.
: It sounds like someone was sitting on a slow train, and there was a fast
: train just across the platform at the station waiting for this someone to
: transfer to the fast train. And this someone got off the slow train
| b****e
发帖数: 460 | 6 So, what's your understanding? Please, thanks.
【在 d*****z 的大作中提到】
: Why do you think EdF's offer is almost doubling BH's?
:
: they
| d*****z
发帖数: 114 | 7 The two offers value CEG at similar level.
BH's offer:
4.7B or 26.5/share for the whole company. It will also assume all CEG's debt
(8.1B), so it values the Enterprise value at 4.7+8.1 = 12.8B.
EDF's offer:
4.5B for 1/2 of nuclear asset, plus up to 2B for non-nuclear asset. It won't
assume any debt, so it values the Enterprise value at 4.5x2 + 2 + ? = 11B +
?, where ? is any remaining non-nuclear asset's value after the 2B
deduction.
The above fomula is not any straight, since we don't know what
【在 b****e 的大作中提到】
: So, what's your understanding? Please, thanks.
| b****e
发帖数: 460 | 8 Thanks a lot.
Considering your understanding, it's amazing someone was gambling on Warren
Buffett would raise his bidding price when $1B broke up fee is on the table.
In over a half century of Warren Buffett's investment history, he only
raised his price once, 10 cents per share. I still don't understand this
someone. :)
debt
't
+
【在 d*****z 的大作中提到】
: The two offers value CEG at similar level.
: BH's offer:
: 4.7B or 26.5/share for the whole company. It will also assume all CEG's debt
: (8.1B), so it values the Enterprise value at 4.7+8.1 = 12.8B.
: EDF's offer:
: 4.5B for 1/2 of nuclear asset, plus up to 2B for non-nuclear asset. It won't
: assume any debt, so it values the Enterprise value at 4.5x2 + 2 + ? = 11B +
: ?, where ? is any remaining non-nuclear asset's value after the 2B
: deduction.
: The above fomula is not any straight, since we don't know what
| s********n
发帖数: 1962 | 9 Why don't you bet some money against this someone?
Warren
table.
【在 b****e 的大作中提到】
: Thanks a lot.
: Considering your understanding, it's amazing someone was gambling on Warren
: Buffett would raise his bidding price when $1B broke up fee is on the table.
: In over a half century of Warren Buffett's investment history, he only
: raised his price once, 10 cents per share. I still don't understand this
: someone. :)
:
: debt
: 't
: +
| T*******t
发帖数: 9274 | 10 厉害厉害
新deal出来之后就不好玩了，这个大家都知道
debt
't
+
【在 d*****z 的大作中提到】
: The two offers value CEG at similar level.
: BH's offer:
: 4.7B or 26.5/share for the whole company. It will also assume all CEG's debt
: (8.1B), so it values the Enterprise value at 4.7+8.1 = 12.8B.
: EDF's offer:
: 4.5B for 1/2 of nuclear asset, plus up to 2B for non-nuclear asset. It won't
: assume any debt, so it values the Enterprise value at 4.5x2 + 2 + ? = 11B +
: ?, where ? is any remaining non-nuclear asset's value after the 2B
: deduction.
: The above fomula is not any straight, since we don't know what
| b****e
发帖数: 460 | 11 No, I won't bet against this someone, because I don't understand the logic
of this someone. I don't bet on something that I don't understand.
【在 s********n 的大作中提到】
: Why don't you bet some money against this someone?
:
: Warren
: table.
| s********n
发帖数: 1962 | 12 Isn't that your theory betting against irrationality?
Irrationality means lack of reasonable logic, doesn't it? If somebody
lacks of logic, of course you won't understand his/her logic. Now you
don't bet if you don't understand, then when will you bet?
【在 b****e 的大作中提到】
: No, I won't bet against this someone, because I don't understand the logic
: of this someone. I don't bet on something that I don't understand.
| b****e
发帖数: 460 | 13 Well, My strategy is much simpler than you can imagine. Iff I can figure out
a sweet deal/opportunity, I will bet on it. Sometimes, this someones do
dumb things, but that's not necessary to leave a sweet deal/opportunity to
me.
【在 s********n 的大作中提到】
: Isn't that your theory betting against irrationality?
: Irrationality means lack of reasonable logic, doesn't it? If somebody
: lacks of logic, of course you won't understand his/her logic. Now you
: don't bet if you don't understand, then when will you bet?
| b****e
发帖数: 460 | 14 Someone wants to jump over a 7-foot hurdle to make a living, that's
ridiculous to me. But, I won't bet on either side. I only bet on someone
wants to jump over 15-foot hurdle or a 1-foot hurdle that you are sure the
probability on one side is 99%.
out
【在 b****e 的大作中提到】
: Well, My strategy is much simpler than you can imagine. Iff I can figure out
: a sweet deal/opportunity, I will bet on it. Sometimes, this someones do
: dumb things, but that's not necessary to leave a sweet deal/opportunity to
: me.
|
|
