Again, you have your view I have mine. I would suggest you steer clear of stating your opinions as fact, when they are in fact, opinions.

For the record, shares with no voting rights, or limited voting rights, or other restrictions, as well as other classes of shares are frequently a part of and/or the totality of an IPO. You seem to think that this is unusual, that is your right. It is not. I do not know how many IPO disclosures you have read, or for what types of offerings, but there is nothing unusual about the Hyatt float.

And, again, as evidence of this, I would point out that a highly sophisticated group of investors and specialists (as well as common investors on the open market who hopefully completed their own due diligence with advice from counsel) reviewed the offering and opted to invest.

Your suggestion that this was because the shares were offered at a discount is tautological -- of course investors in the IPO sought the shares at a discount, and believe it will appreciate in value...if they didn't then Barnum indeed!

Again, believe your conspiracy theories if you please...we are so far off topic for FT I don't even know why we continue -- but the markets seem to believe that this (like most IPOs) is meant to raise capital to facilitate the further growth of the company; those who elected to invest believe that the company will grow and provide a return on their investment. I hope they are correct.

Everything else is just so much hearsay and finger pointing. You can have the last word, I will not rely further to this thread.