Conspiracy Theory: Snyder and Magic Mountain

Maybe this conspiracy theory could be on Unsolved Mysteries? ;)

I miss that show.

-Tina

If you haven't been on Ninja, Revolution, Goldrusher, Superman, or Colossus yet, you'd better buy a ticket to SoCal.

---

MrX said:
Why wouldn't Snyder be allowed to buy those 500,000 shares? I don't see what's wrong with that. I mean, obviously if he falsified reports to MAKE the stock plummet, then yeah, that's pretty illegal. But if he is just telling the truth about the companys situation and the stock plummets, then he is totally allowed to buy those shares. He's just being a smart business man.

I think some of you are overreacting to this whole situation. You just can't believe that they are considering selling SFMM. Believe it.

---

I think you kind of answered the question yourself.

The stock plunged almost immediately after the announcement was made & what does he do? he buys more shares which doesn't make sense.I wonder if Snyder might just become the next Martha Stewart here?<cough insider trading cough> as this sounds kinda shady to me.

---

Michael Darling said:
No way in hell is another park operator going to make a better bid even on just the land than a land developer would. Not in that area.

---

I was asked this morning "won't another park operator want to buy the park?" This is prety much exactly what I said...WOULD be nice, but *unlikely* is being WAY too generous. Blame SoCal land values...

But I'll still take Sierra Twist... ;)

1.) $200 Million bucks for the park, rides included.

2.) $1 Million bucks an acre at about 200+ acres, not including rides

Duh?

---

kRaXLeRidAh said:

Some people are suggesting these "threats" to sell off the 6 parks is nothing more than a ploy: to temporarily drop the price of shares so Snyder can buy them up just as shareholders are selling them off in an anxious panic.

---

I'll repeat my point in the other thread and that's that shares of Six Flags did NOT tumble on the news of the potential sale of the six parks.

The company warned that it would likely miss its 2006 operating profit targets and doing so would violate debt covenants. In other words, it would allow creditors to call back their debt and Six Flags would need to scramble to stay afloat.

That rarely happens. Even though a creditor is ahead of a shareholder if a company files for bankruptcy, it's in the creditor's best interest to work things out with the company. THAT is why the company announced that it was looking to unload six parks that accounted for a quarter of its EBITDA in a move that would wipe out at least a quarter of the company's debt (and quite possibly a third if Six Flags is able to fetch closer to $700 million instead of $500 million).

Snyder buying more shares isn't illegal. And if he was really so deceitful he would have sold a chunk of shares BEFORE the announcement. Well, that would probably have been illegal.

My point is that those who are buying into the conspiracy theory are letting emotions of a park enthusiast get in the way of the reality of how the market operates.

Usually when a company announces that it will be unloading assets, especially assets that aren't performing, it is applauded by the market.

Six Flags didn't tumble after the sale of SFO or its European parks. It may have actually inched higher after the AstroWorld news.