mmtul

@StocHoliday84 @jonnajarian Love the way he followed his brother out of the back, chose not to go what appeared to be the shorter but potentially contested "tweener" route (maybe respecting his brother), then still was able to win it from the outside.

I just cannot stop watching this race

$SNDK mgmt just said on the call "It's happening" youtu.be/xb2fjZa_L74?si…

@2stoked4u @DrEliDavid @grok @grok can you confirm yet?

@DrEliDavid @grok can you confirm?

$UNF Getting an exact entry point is a little trickier than opining that a deal should happen, but my 2 cents would be 1) there is some doubt of approvability, 2) the process to approval is about 6 months +/- a couple months, 3) about 1/2 the value in $CTAS stock, so there is still stock market risk. So when I consider it all, I think the odds of getting more than $300 per share in value within 6 months are pretty good, but I'd want 15% or so to tie up the capital, so my buy range would be around $260 +/- $5. But of course the factors are constantly changing, so that number would constantly change.

@riceforthought @mmtul @ do you guys think arbitrage is good now 11-11.5% return Will regulatory bodies make merger take a while?

Please get this over with so I can short the smithereens out of $CTAS $UNF

$UNF All's well that ends well.

Looks like $UNF shareholders are finally getting somewhere. The silence and lack of activity in the stock has been encouraging up to this point, but still has tested patience!

Let's see...I can buy $WMT at 50x, or CHTR at 5x. Admittedly not a totally rational comparison, but I still think I'll go with the $CHTR

@FlowbyBobby well @FlowbyBobby @JK15181325 $UNF maybe next time you will report it more accurately as "whale buying 210 calls" instead of "whale selling"

🐳whale selling $1.3m $UNF 210 C 03/20/2026

$UNF $JPM is a key advisor for $UNF in this transaction, but has also served $CTAS in important financings in the past

$UNF has ignored or declined prior very attractive offers from $CTAS to the detriment of all common shareholders per the decisions of the supervoting Croatti family IMO. There is no reason for this company to be public when the non-supervoting shareholders are blatantly discriminated against IMO. Given the past history of disregard for non-family shareholders, and the obvious error of the board’s decision-making in retrospect IMO (as demonstrated by years of lagging performance), the Board’s decision to engage or not in a process to maximize shareholder value and consider offers should be a material, disclosure-worthy decision by the board IMO. Having known of takeover interest for at least a month, if not longer in my estimation, and given prior experience with such, why it has yet to be disclosed that a process is either ongoing or not is beyond me. Long ignored shareholders are at least entitled to know whether they will be mistreated again or not, and withholding this material information makes analysis for shareholders impossible IMO. Therefore the board should be required to disclose the very material fact of whether a process has been undertaken to maximize shareholder value or not. Isn’t it a violation of securities laws to withhold such information, and hasn’t enough time passed to decide?

@MelissaLeeCNBC @michaelsantoli Been watching CNBC for decades. You and Mike are doing the best job with the 4:00-5:00 slot in the history of CNBC

@EscapeVlcty yes, it's been very quiet for a long time. The other side of the coin is that there will be huge disappointment if after all this time, nothing happens, but it seems logical to me that the longer we go, there should be only one answer to the question, why is this taking so long.

@mmtul I’d like to think it doesn’t take a month to figure out a way to wriggle out of this. Maybe they are actually working on a deal in good faith

@JK15181325 @FlowbyBobby It will be interesting to see what the change in open interest is tomorrow.

@mmtul @FlowbyBobby Selling covered calls

@JK15181325 @FlowbyBobby How does he know the whale selling the call owns the stock? Is he his broker?

@InternLon I was going to mention, yes, there is an optimistic spin that this behavior is different than prior when they either ignored or dismissed the offers. The quiet could be interpreted as evidence of engagement this time.

@mmtul Sure 2 weeks is a lot of time but for all we know they are engaged right now in discussions and diligence. Companies don't typically disclose when they are in negotiations.

$UNF continues the total stonewall approach - not willing to take any Q's about the $CTAS offer. But they did say they will report the results of the review being performed by their advisors (JPM and GS) when it's ready. The advisors would have to be deaf, dumb, and blind IMO, to opine that shareholders would be better off with the status quo, but it won't be the first time an advisor was paid enough to make a wrong decision IMO.

although I cannot recall them off the top of my head, many times I have heard something to the effect of: "typically we do not comment on merger rumors or negotiations, but in this case we have decided to make the following comments". Also, the point I was making was that they have either stonewalled or dismissed two prior offers from Cintas, and thus should be intimately familiar with the facts around any potential transaction with them such that two weeks should have been sufficient time to make an announcement as to whether they were going to dismiss again or engage.

@mmtul In what deals have you seen management make definitive statements in earnings calls about pre-deal negotiations with an acquiror? If they continue to refuse to engage, it will be against the advice of their bankers and we'll hear about it from CTAS.