Wow Jurek, I don't know what I find more offensive, arrogance or sarcasm.

"shareholder value of equity" (sorry but could not find this in the dictionary or economics 101) "

PEOPLE UNDERSTOOD WHAT I MEANT

"The good news is that "shareholder value of equity" (sorry but could not find this in the dictionary or economics 101) or NAVPS will not determine the takeover target price.

I never said it will determine I is said,

"However if it is taken over the starting price will be at least whatever the total equity is divided by the outstanding shares"

JUREK, maybe in Poland people sell things for BELOW what their worth, here we expect to at least get the book value.Each share I own represents my piece of the pie. If that piece is worth $2.36, then you'd better be offering more than that.

NOW my post was based on the IDEA that a low ball bid would have to at least be equal to book value to be acceptable.

LETS LOOK AT UTS,

Total assets $861 million Dollars

Total Liabilities $122 million dollars

Total Shareholder Equity $ 739 million dollars

Total shares outstanding 474 million

Total shareholder equity divided by total outstanding shares equals $ 1.56

one share = 1 piece of the company or 1/474 millionth of that $739 million.

Now on Jan 28 TOTAL makes a HOSTILE takeover bid of $1.30 a share which is refused PEOPLE WOULDN'T accept below book. Since the takeover bid UTS has closed with range of a low of $1.66 to a high of $1.78.. WHICH BTW works out to between 7-14% above book value. This COULD be seen as the starting point for negotiations. COINCIDENCE? you tell me.

ALSO anyone notice that GMP price targets for CLL went to $2.65 ( book value + about 13%) just around the UTS takeover fever started now has dropped again as CLL takeover is off the radar. NOW SOME may take that to mean GMP saw that as the starting point for negotiations.

MAYBE AGAIN just coincidences,, what do I know right. I'm just a simple man formulating potentially logical explanations with information available..Sometimes fancy statistics and formulative oppinions based on whaterever doesn't really tell the story, sometimes MAYBE the answers may be found looking at the least sophisticated data.