> Well, that's your problem
It looks like an activist position. The shares were acquired with the view of making them more valuable through direct action. This is a validated hedge fund strategy.
It looks like an activist position. The shares were acquired with the view of making them more valuable through direct action. This is a validated hedge fund strategy.
It's an activist position, not a takeover. The shares are acquired for (a) shareholder rights, which can be accomplished with a single share and (b) economic upside.
When a hedge fund pursues this strategy, it typically purchases advertising to make its case. (The case isn't just made to current shareholders. Shares owned by a sympathizer who bought on your activism vote the same as shares held by longtime holders.) That puts a lower bound on the deal size.
Galloway has his own channels. That reduces his costs and thus minimum transaction size.