"My argument is that, if the market believed that a threat of a compulsory acquisition didn't hang over CIM, then the price could get to $65. But above 90% ownership, they can conduct a compulsory buy out. It is not an offer to sell; it is a forced sale."
Yes, but the only time the remaining 9.999% of a business can be compulsorily acquired is as part of a formal takeover offer process.
Without making a formal takeover, ACS cannot simply force minority shareholders to sell their shares.
If, in 3 years' time, ACS have creeped to >90% of the issued capital of CIM, they aren't deemed to be able to summarily acquire the remaining shares. For starters, what would be the effective price?
Theoretically, they could keep creeping until they own all the shares expect yours, and still you would not be forced to sell your shares to them (of course, that's hypothetical because long before that there liquidity in the trade of the companies shares will start to dry up and it will be increasingly difficult for all the shares to be acquired unless ACS bids very high prices (much higher than $65, I'll wager, if it wants to acquire every single share by creeping)).
"So, does one sell before the 90% threshhold, hold and hope that they do nothing except continue to do a good job of management (and perhaps buy more), or take the chance that they pay a fair price. It would be an uninformed decision with good odds of being wrong. "
What are you uninformed about?
Hoping a controlling entity properly manages a business in which you are a minority shareholder applies irrespective of whether that controlling shareholder owns 50.1% or 60% or 75%. Or even 80% or 89.9%.
"And, having raised the topic, you didn't offer an opinion on the acceptability of the Creep Provisions."
I'm totally ambivalent to it. In almost 30 years of following, and investing in, listed companies, I have not once felt prejudiced or disadvantaged by it. In fact, I think they provide transparency and clarity in terms of what a major shareholder is doing at any given 6-month period. I'm not sure what the alternative would look like: prohibit someone who owns more than 20% of a company from being able to increase their holdings?
(20min delay)