Question: One of the arguments made for having legislation restricting hostile
One of the arguments made for having legislation restricting hostile takeovers is that unscrupulous speculators may take over well-run firms and destroy them for personal gain. Allowing for the possibility that this could happen, do you think that this is sensible? If so, why? If not, why not?
Relevant QuestionsStockholders can transfer wealth from bondholders through a variety of actions. How would the following actions by stockholders transfer wealth from bondholders? a. An increase in dividends b. A leveraged buyout c. Acquiring ...Companies outside the United States often have two classes of stock outstanding. One class of shares is voting and is held by the incumbent managers of the firm. The other class is nonvoting and represents the bulk of traded ...United Airlines has a beta of 1.50. The standard deviation in the market portfolio is 22% and United Airlines has a standard deviation of 66%. a. Estimate the correlation between United Airlines and the market portfolio. b. ...Assume that the average variance of return for an individual security is 50% and that the average covariance is 10%. What is the expected variance of a portfolio of 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100 securities. How many securities need ...Chrysler, the automotive manufacturer, had a beta of 1.05 in 1995. It had $13 billion in debt outstanding in that year and 355 million shares trading at $50 per share. The firm had a cash balance of $8 billion at the end of ...
Post your question