What do these "disappointed" fund managers calling for more "engagement" between AstraZeneca and Pfizer actually want?
If Schroders, the latest to join the chorus, stated out loud that AstraZeneca's board was silly to reject £55-a-share one would understand. It would be expressing a clear and straightforward opinion.
But that's not what Schroders is saying. It merely thinks Pfizer drew a "premature end" to negotiations by declaring £55 to be a final proposal and it wants to "encourage the AstraZeneca management to recommence their engagement with Pfizer."
But there was plenty of engagement with Pfizer – that's what the talks at the weekend were all about. For better or worse, no deal was possible. AstraZeneca wanted at least £58.85 and Pfizer wouldn't go that high.
But, comes the reply, the price gap is only 7% and there is other stuff to talk about, like how a combined company would operate. And maybe a technical interpretation of the Takeover Panel's ruling on what constitutes a "final" offer has left the door ajar.
Forget it. AstraZeneca's board took a view on what the company was worth and stuck to it. That is a role directors are appointed to perform. Equally, Pfizer's board set out what it was willing to pay, honouring its commitment to its own shareholders to be "disciplined" on price. If the two figures don't meet, there's no deal – and thus no need to discuss other material issues like the solidity of Pfizer's tax inversion plan and how to ringfence AstraZeneca research projects.
For a clear statement on how the land lies, listen to Fidelity's Dominic Rossi, who happens to thinks AstraZeneca did the right thing. "The Astra board has taken a very difficult decision. They understood in rejecting the offer they would be criticised by some shareholders. We will now have to wait two to three years to see whether they were right. With a little luck they could well be." Yes, that's a clear assessment.
