Gaucho420

Utilities: Get Dividends Paid in Euros

And to answer David, yes, the only reason these companies aren't on the NYSE are the set of rules and fees required to pay to be officially listed. Most of these companies have fairly light volume on the NYSE and it is cost prohibitive for them to pay fees to be fully listed (as well as meet the disclusore requirements), so they go with the OTC.

GDFZY is the world's 2nd largest utility company behind Russia's behemoth Gazprom, and they were listed fully with the NYSE prior to Sarbanes–Oxley Act becoming law, which required more time & money to stay listed with the NYSE. Once that law became 100% enforeceable, for foreign companies with low volumes in the US, Banes-Oxley proved too cost prohibitive given the low volume, so they went with the OTC.

Utilities: Get Dividends Paid in Euros

I agree with the logic, but you missed one key thing, unless I skipped over it in the article... you didn't mention the fact that most of these countries will deduct their dividend tax prior to getting your dividend, so the true return dividend wise is lower than you state in the artcle, as France, for example, takes out up to 30% from GDF stock the moment its issued. Most of the time, the foreign governments tax is higher than what you would've paid in the US.

I still beleive in the philosophy and have been investing in it for a while, but your readers should know about the taxes taken out up front as well. I do beleive, however, that you are not double taxed from the US government either, but the foreign tax will probaby be a higher % than what the US government would've taken out on its own.

M&A Lessons from 2008: Take the Money and Run

I think this column is invalid, as is the analysis, as well...were in a very severe recession, perhaps heading towards a depression.

Everyone has 20-20 hindisght and had any of these companies had the foresight to see the financial system collapse, they would've accepted their bids.

However, 1) all assummed the economy would not fall off a cliff and 2) all priced their takeover target price per a regular economy.

Its easy to say take the money and run in hindisght in a depressed economy, as no matter what your individual story as a company or sector, when the tide lowers, all boat sink.

So while its great to say you should've taken the money and ran, the bottom line is one sector (finance) has caused every other sector to collapse as it is the lifeblood of the economy.

In TTWO case (I'm a shareholder who cashed out near $27, but thought it should be worth much, much more and still do based on potential), how could they see a collapse of the economy coming? I wish for them they had...but again, hindsight's 20-20 and what happend to it and EA's stock is really more reflective of the fear of a depression that is palable and everywhere in equities.

A little more research next time...its easy to say you should've taken the money following an economic collapse as that is always the answer and will always be the answer in hindsight under this scenario that over-shadows all scenarios, but it is not at all reflective of any of these mergers individual stories at the time they said NO.

Weak analysis.