Photo: John Greim/LightRocket via Getty Images

Women's apparel retailer Chico's FAS yesterday rejected a $3.50 per share takeover offer from private equity firm Sycamore Partners, saying it undervalued the company. Nothing shocking, given that Chico's had previously rejected an offer from Sycamore that was 18.6% higher.

Buzz: There are still some big questions about how Sycamore will fare on this non-deal, given that it disclosed a 6.6% stake in Chico's at the same time it announced its $3.50 per share takeover offer. And if that offer, which was bound to be nixed, was designed to recoup some earlier losses.

  • Outsiders are, by definition, not insiders. But that doesn't mean that they can't trade on information that will move a stock.

Before continuing, it's important to note that Sycamore doesn't like to talk to reporters about ... well, anything. And it's maintained that same posture this time around, made even more complicated by the fact that its outside PR firm happens to represent Chico's on this particular situation. So what follows is based only on public filings:

  • Sycamore reported on a Form 13D that it had invested $33.4 million to purchase the 7.64 million shares it held as of May 10 (when the revised offer was disclosed). That works out to an average of $4.37 per share.
  • But in an attached exhibit of detailed trading data, Sycamore only shows that it purchased a total of 5.07 million shares for $21 million ($4.14 per share avg), inclusive of 647,000 shares it subsequently sold for $2.57 million ($3.97 avg).
    • In other words, there's an unexplained discrepancy. It seems to work against Sycamore's favor but, if there are undisclosed purchases, perhaps there were also undisclosed sales.
  • Sycamore appeared to buy at market prices, with many of its outlays between April 25 and May 9 coming below the $3.50 per share offer it was about to make. And all purchases in that period were below where the stock spiked after the lowball offer was announced.

This missing math makes it very difficult to figure out Sycamore's performance or intentions, particularly when married to the fact that we have no disclosures (yet) about what Sycamore might have sold subsequent to its press release.

  • Yes, this is small money for a buyout firm investing out of a $4.75 billion fund. And Sycamore could have made a takeover offer without having first purchased any public equity.

The bottom line: In light of yesterday's discussion of the LTSE, it goes to show how lax public equity transparency rules can help big investors cut their losses.

Go deeper: Big-name private equity firms are asking for bigger cuts of investment profits

Go deeper

Wall Street is no longer betting on Trump

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

Betting markets have turned decisively toward an expected victory for Joe Biden in November — and asset managers at major investment banks are preparing for not only a Biden win, but potentially a Democratic sweep of the Senate and House too.

Why it matters: Wall Street had its chips on a Trump win until recently — even in the midst of the coronavirus-induced recession and Biden's rise in the polls.

With new security law, China outlaws global activism

Illustration: Eniola Odetunde/Axios

The draconian security law that Beijing forced upon Hong Kong last week contains an article making it illegal for anyone in the world to promote democratic reform for Hong Kong.

Why it matters: China has long sought to crush organized dissent abroad through quiet threats and coercion. Now it has codified that practice into law — potentially forcing people and companies around the world to choose between speaking freely and ever stepping foot in Hong Kong again.

43 mins ago - Health

Axios-Ipsos poll: There is no new normal

Data: Axios/Ipsos poll; Chart: Andrew Witherspoon/Axios

The longer the coronavirus pandemic lasts, the farther we're moving apart, according to our analysis of nearly four months of data from the Axios-Ipsos Coronavirus Index.

Why it matters: Ever since life in the U.S. as we knew it came to a screeching halt, we've been trying to get our heads around what a "new normal" will look like. But so far, the politicization of the virus — and our socioeconomic differences — are working against any notion of national unity in impact or response.