Deja, there is certainly the risk that TIX "overpaid", but also...

Deja, there is certainly the risk that TIX "overpaid", but also some counter-evidence. TIX made it clear in commentary over the past year that industrial property for sale is no longer fair value, which might make ANI better value in comparison.

The fact that TIX was not allowed to look at ANI's books is a breach of the ANI's board's fiduciary duties, in my opinion. However, TIX wasn't completely blind going into this deal. ANI's assets are easily identified and can be assessed for value (in addition to independent valuations reported by ANI). Also, TIX had its ears to the ground, referring to market information about ANI leases that ANI hadn't announced to its shareholders.

And if you believe KPMG made an unbiased assessment of ANI, then TIX paid fair value (about 8% to 10% above NTA, I recall).

It is always difficult for many of us to assess whether TIX (or any other AREIT ) "overpaid" for a property or business. For instance, HC posters claimed last year that TIX overpaid for the Woolies properties, yet subsequent TIX reports suggest that deal was good value (at least in terms of valuation increases).

One part of your statement I think is clearly incorrect, namely that TIX is in a "rush to be a biggie". TIX chipped away for 10 months to acquire ANI, which is a snail's pace even in the relatively unhurried AREIT industry.