RE:post removed for defamationOk so that worked. Which means I can probably say the system (meaning the venture capital funding system designed by investment banks and in our case in cooperation with big pharma as their main clients) the system encourages opacity on both sides of most financing deals.
And I can probably say (again) that opacity in finance negotiations is a choice, not a legal requirement. Occasionally we see very public bidding wars, so this must be the case. It would be a choice therefore made by agreement between the buyer and seller, implying that both benefit.
And IMO they both stand to benefit at the expense of existing shareholders for obvious reasons.
The buyer benefits by keeping information from potential competitors, and in so doing also increases the probability of being able to drag out negotiations while the seller's cash burn and market silence causes the market price to drop.
The seller's negotiators (as opposed to it's non-insider shareholders)
benefit personally from the lack of shareholder scrutiny regarding performance, and potentially benefit personally should any part of their remuneration be of fixed sum convertible into shares at market price.
I think transparency would conversely generally benefit existing shareholder's, transparency of bids not of bidder identity as it does not matter to the market price who the bidder is. And where transparency is lacking I am forced to conclude that it is by agreement of both parties because while it may be of practical convenience it is not a legal requirement.
Hope I didn't use any bad words.