A shrewd post, Remastered. Things seem to be coming to a head....

A shrewd post, Remastered. Things seem to be coming to a head. Maybe it's just as well, as it has been a long wait.

Without speculating about a takeover 'source', I am still recalling that I understand a successful 'compulsory' ASX takeover requires the offer to be accepted by 90% of the shareholders. If 90% accept the offer (say 3.0c as speculated by remastered) then the other 10% 'have' to sell at that as well? But if say 75% accept the offer of say 3.0c, then like board control is achieved, but this is 'not' a compulsory takeover - so in that case if the remaining 25% of shareholders choose to hang in, they cannot be forced to sell, and will ride on the coattails of future share price gains going forward from the much better funded outfit? This 'could' generate a whole lot better outcome for long-termers than a quick jump in and sale at the first takeover offer price?

Of course there are a whole bunch of other developments down the road, like consolidations or swaps for parent shares? My current logic is that a long-term MST holder (who came in at much higher and undiluted share prices) would be best served by a takeover that doesn't reach the 90% compulsory line. Heh Heh.

This is not advice to anyone, and may be wrong. Perhaps some more experienced shareholders can clarify if indeed I have it wrong?