7 Comments
User's avatar
jraider's avatar

“Stolen market value” is a good description - also applies to Swedish Match, which like CLCT, was acquired in the middle of a boom in demand for its products. SWMA didn’t feature a co-opted board member like CLCT did (as Davey’s Blog noted), but did illustrate how short-term perspectives and incentives for shareholders could push a deal past a 90% acceptance threshold. I owned both targets, voted no twice, and feel pocketbook regret.

Expand full comment
Forbes Jamieson's avatar

Would have liked to have owned both. Wasn’t smart enough.

Expand full comment
TSOH Investment Research's avatar

This was fantastic, thank you.

If open to requests, would love if you could hyperlink to some of the more notable sources throughout the post. For example, would love to know the source for the Munger quote, the Charizard pricing, the >3x increase in 2020 demand, etc. Just my two cents - thanks again!

Expand full comment
Forbes Jamieson's avatar

Bet - I’ll revert

Expand full comment
TSOH Investment Research's avatar

Thanks man, keep up the great work!

Also, I'll be digging through my parent's attic to see if I still have a Charizard...

Expand full comment
Davey's Blog's avatar

CLCT *tripled* cards graded per day after being acquired and massively hiked prices. About a year later, it raised money at 5x the valuation Nat Turner purchased the company.

Expand full comment
Davey's Blog's avatar

Nat was originally part of Connor's slate of new directors. He got introduced to the business by Connor and had the value enhancing roadmap laid out to him. He would later buy shares on market, disclose the purchases late, then resign from the slate. Connor released him from an NDA (a mistake). Nat then bid for the company.

Expand full comment