In short: Reference — in the Whitecap merger, Veren holders are the majority owners, so the deal was the natural chance to reset Whitecap's dividend policy (and they didn't). Cited to explain why the combined dividend looks stretched.
29:02Veron shareholders were the majority owners. So what better reason to reset it? Because it's not like Veron was getting those same dividends. So if they cut the dividend, would you take a look at it? Just outside of this issue and whether they're going to list in the US, which I know is a big debate as well.
In short: Reference — the "merger of equals" with Whitecap in which Veren takes ~52%. Smead finds it "conspicuous" that Veren owns the majority yet the Whitecap team runs the business — the executives paid a >20% premium to keep control (the agent-owner problem). Veren had been drifting to a discount after last year's execution miss.
34:34why is ven owning a majority of this business okay why and in my opinion it looks like the executive team from White Cap paid up to run the business okay in other words a deal like that why didn't it go off at a 10 or 20% premium because it was like a an a a merger of equals if you want okay ultimately because White Cap wanted the executives there wanted to run the business and so I think a premium greater than 20% was paid so that the executive team would be running the company now you can take that how you'd
Nothing matches this filter.
Verbatim excerpts from the public transcripts (auto-pulled at each mention's timestamp, lightly cleaned). Timestamps link into the video; "source page" opens that commentator's full analysis at this row. Click a mention's header line to expand it (one open at a time). For personal study — not investment advice.