If a large block of shares in an otherwise valuable company were to be disposed of in a reckless and hasty manner, the party driving the selling would be exposed as the real loser once the dust settles. In reality, a large shareholder looking to dispose of a significant shareholding needs to sell in accordance with a sensible strategy in order to protect their own interests by achieving the highest possible price for the asset. When a shareholding constitutes some 37% of a successful, profitable company with (arguably) bright prospects, it should be relatively straightforward to broker the sale of large blocs of shares directly to institutional investors without trashing the shareprice on the open market.
However, if a large shareholder actually wishes to disrupt the market in a company's shares as part of a larger agenda (to apply pressure on management, for example), then the rapid disposal of a significant bloc of shares into the mainstream market will achieve the desired effect. Whilst this could only be done as a tactic (the shares sold would achieve well below best price for the seller), a 37% shareholder could sustain such losses for quite some time before eating significantly into his core holding. A disgruntled major shareholder could regard the sum forfeited as a consequence of intentional reckless selling as a worthwhile 'price' for making his point.
The above observations are of course generic. In the specific case of EasyJet, we are not party to the motives and objectives of Stelios and his allies (although we may deduce certain patterns from media reports). IMHO, if Stelios and allies were intent on selling out, I believe that there would be sufficient institutional interest to buy him out at or close to the prevailing shareprice. Of course, if the true motive is to remain a major shareholder for the long term, then a programme of tactical disposals (at a cost) may make sense to the selling party in order to exert influence over company policy.
Having followed this story for a very long time, it is difficult to foresee a joyful reconciliation between Stelios and his allies on one side and EasyJet management on the other. If Stelios could be persuaded to sell up (and reinvest the proceeds realised in companies better aligned with his stated investment objectives), this could be the best outcome for all parties concerned. Stelios could invest elsewhere for dividend income; EasyJet management could plan their fleet procurement as they see fit going forward.
PS. davidjohnson6 - My posting was already in composition before your reply appeared on the thread. No intention to tread on your toes here. Regards.
Last edited by Shed-on-a-Pole; 21st Jan 2013 at 18:33.