Why #4?

tpltblogger13 Comments

Having shares to spend makes the empire bigger. More comp. More prestige. Real jet instead of a King Air. Etc. Board and C suite both incentivized to grow enterprise size. Not necessarily share price. Two very different things.

4 is not your friend.

13 thoughts on “Why #4?”

  2. Yes. But what else was the rationale for converting to a C Corp from a Trust? The trust had the obligation to slowly wind down operations; some investors recognized that 900k acres had more value if they were kept intact than if they were slowly sold off.

    Of course, most investors here think the same – they just want the entity essentially taken private with a clutch of like minded people in control. But the minute the goal became empire building, they hired some empire builders.

    Like

  3. Team-EVERYONE needs to reach out to other like minded long term shareholders and make sure everyone votes NO for 4(share authorization). Glover, Barry, Steddum, are scared. They are seeing these votes come in on a daily basis and are scared. With MS,HK, etc voting no they are scared. We need to put them to bed. Let’s rally together these next couple of weeks. This is the best company in the world and it has only started.

    Like

    • Fred, Do you have reason to be certain MS/HK are voting against the proposal (along with presumably Oliver’s shares and, as we know, Lion Partners’ 50k shares)? To my mind, that’s the most important variable of the voting outcome. Is this a case where MS is bound by the settlement to vote with the Board, or can he be a maverick (as he was with kicking out Dana from the Board)? I asked TPL’s IR rep this question a few weeks ago and he said he couldn’t divulge how MS feels about the proposal… which is probably a good sign that he can vote as he chooses, and would explain why they are desperate to rustle up enough ‘For’ votes from the remaining roughly 75% of the voting shares.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I got into this same discussion with IR last year about the shareholder agreement and whether it covered the Dana vote. I was told by IR that they could not tell me and that and I had to interpret the agreement for myself (they did link to the agreement). I started reading it and decided I would prefer pulling my toenails out while watching The View.

        I am also interested in MS’s opinion on this proposal. While I voted against #4, MS and EO ‘For’ without shareholder agreement restrictions would likely keep me from drinking and reruns of Antiques Roadshow. Who am I kidding, I love drinking and AR.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Even if MS/HK is bound to vote with the board, it’s not the end of this. Like they say, #4 needs a majority of outstanding shares to be approved. Go look at the tally from last year and see how many things were actually supported by a majority of outstanding shares.

    Liked by 1 person

    • If MS and EO were to vote ‘For’ by their own volition, not because they are forced to, then the proposal would probably pass, and I would feel better about it because that would be a good signal that some highly lucrative acquisitions were available for the taking. However, if they are actually in favor, then Barry/Norris/Glover made a big mistake by not having those Board members sign their name to the Nov. 8 letter to shareholders. They are playing us for fools if those three think they are speaking on behalf of all Board members when we know the dynamics of the relationships.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. It’s not exactly TPL related, but is anyone stressed out by the extreme Bitcoin sales pitch HK has been involved with, and possible redemptions of HK funds forcing TPL sales as Bitcoin turns to ashes?

    Like

Comments are closed.