text: should hostile takeovers be prevented? are they a bad thing?   this is a fact of life in a free market economy where a company is traded on an exchange.  to prevent the possibility of hostile takeovers would have the effect of undermining the possiblity for many companies to raise capital by going public.    just because it is called a hostile takeover doesn't necessarily mean that it is bad.  it simply means that a majority share of a target publicly-traded company is being acquired by another entity against the wishes of the board, stock holders and even the employees.  one doesn't do this with the hope of maintaining morale and good will, as everyone in the target firm resent it and fear losing their jobs.  it is usually done by the taking company to gain a competitive advantage of some type, like market share, technology, properties, assets, etc.    however, if stock is traded freely on the exchange, it has to be the same for everyone, regardless of intention.  how the takeover is conducted is subject to certain regulations, though.  a merger that would create an unfair competitive advantage, hostile or not, has to be approved by the sec.