It’s great to have a significant shareholder join this discussion!
As you probably know, Oriola is not a pharmacy chain but a pharmaceutical distributor and wholesaler, so the comparison is not entirely accurate. Comparing the valuation of Apotea, which is growing very strongly and yet reasonably profitable, to Oriola is also not relevant in my opinion. These are interesting from the perspective of Oriola’s pharmacy joint venture. Oriola is, of course, also less profitable than, for example, Tamro, so underperforming competitors is true in itself.
I agree with this.
I, on the other hand, don’t quite subscribe to this logic, even though I understand the idea. Why should A-shareholders somehow protect other shareholders or prevent them from selling the company (or primarily their own shares) if they wish to do so? Even with a single share class, shareholders have full power not to sell their shares if the offer is genuinely too low (e.g., Musti remained listed when some owners did not want to sell). Competition also arises in the market if tender offers are too low (e.g., Caverion, Uponor).
I, as you said, believe it would be the company’s management’s task to explain where they have failed previously and how operations and profitability will be improved in the future. If this is presented credibly and execution begins, the share’s valuation will surely follow. If this does not succeed, it might even be better for shareholders to accept the “discount price” tender offer – in that case, the price might have a perfectly valid reason.