Thanks for your response. I was just curious as to why someone who holds no interest in AZZ, but holds shares in a company bearing a similar name to the one seeking control, would suddenly decide to take such an interest. This was also interesting in the context of a first time poster (Reloader) coming from out of the blue to express support for the takeover.
I bought AZZ because I thought it had assets that were worth substantially more than its market capitalisation. I am always concerned with company debt, and AZZ's debt position is no exception to that.
While I am not completely happy with management, I don't think giving control to the first guy to turn up and seek control of the company without consideration of the alternatives they are proposing is a good idea either. Particularly someone with such a small holding of only around 5%.
I've read a lot of complaints about management in here, which is fair enough; but that in itself is not enough reason to chuck them out.
What is the alternative? Some here have suggested they'd vote for the resolutions proposed by Lone Star, because they are unsatisfied with current management, but there has been little discussion about the merits of the alternative presented.
Earlier, I posted a link to analysis by Peter Strachan who outlined his assessment's of Lone Stars proposal which was rather scathing. No one engaged with the content.
The only response which was rather low on content was from Reloader, our first time poster on both Hotcopper and the AZZ thread, who could only respond to the analysis with a sarcastic one liner "so he has 2 subscribers now". I've seen primary school kids argue a better case.
AZZ Price at posting:
53.5¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
