Shareholder Perspective on Hostile Takeover Numbers

The New York Times Dealbook provides a brief excerpt from an article at efinancialnews.com (registration, which I have yet to do, for a free trial is required to access the full article): 

JPMorgan Chase successfully defended clients against hostile takeover approaches 64.4 percent of the time — the best among the top advisory banks, according to an analysis by Financial News. Morgan Stanley, meanwhile, got clients it advised 15.9 percent more in price when hostile takeovers were successful, another best, according to the analysis.

First thought:  How many companies that hire JPMorgan Chase would be better off if the takeover were successful?  That's obviously not JPMorgan's problem, but it is a potential concern for shareholders. 

Second thought:  As a shareholder, based on this report, which firm would I rather see my board hire? Pretty clear for most of us, I suspect:  Morgan Stanley. Most of the time, I'd rather see 15.9% more for my shares in a takeover than see my company's management team stay the course.  Not always, I suppose. But almost.

--JPF