crapshoot101

One big danger is assuming that the Pakistani state is some sort of monolithic entity - it isn't. The ISI is a state within the state, and there are significant sectarian movements and tribal loyalties on top of it, and that's without even getting into the nature of the efficacy (or lack thereof) of the governing apparatus across the country (ie, one big movement calls for working with the TTP, or the Pakistani Taliban).

In other words, is it possible that elements in the Pakistani state (read: ISI cells / divisions) and some personnel knew that Bin Laden was in Pakistan? Almost certainly yes.

Is it probable that it was known widely by the governing apparatus as a sort of defacto knowledge discussed at say, the cabinel level? I'd say that's unlikely.

I think its more that the market is pricing in two things in its probability estimation:

1) The deal won't actually close until next summer. Even if we know for certain that the price is locked in at the numbers specified (due to collars or what not), you're investing at $28 to get $33 while locking up assets for a year, while still being subject to risk of Dell issuing a lot of debt that's going to get more expensive (when the Fed raises rates later this year). Ie, its a nice ~15% yield for 1 year, but its a risky asset. Also, unlike typical cases where a company is in play, this trading price suggests that the market doesn't think an alternate bid (IBM? MSFT? ORCL?) is likely to emerge, or at least not a more substantial one.

2) The structure of the tracking stock is unique, and its not clear if the biggest agitator in EMC (Elliot) is on board with this transaction.

My personal bet is that the deal will go through - but the markets are probably pricing in the a) long time frame and b) potential debt exposure from an interest rate rise that may blow it up. For what its worth, in most transactions like this, there's always some gap between the "sale price" and the trading price.

Its a fair point, but its a little bit more complex than that.

For example, EMC's valuation is really dominated by VMWare, of which it owns 80% (indeed, much of the strategic discussion around EMC before Dell emerged had focused on a merger where the parent bought out VMWare or the other way around). VMWare is currently trading ~$33B; Dell could easily take a portion of that stake that EMC owns (say, 25% of that 80%, which would still allow it to maintain majority control) and put that out in the market and generate ~$8B or so (maybe more). Moreover, they could (and probably will) spin off business units that they have less interest in (speculating here, but RSA?). Because EMC has had this traditional federation model, the spinoff / sale of business lines is probably easier than in most areas.

No matter what, the debt overhang is still large, but its definitely not as large as it appears at first glance.

That's absolutely false. To take one example, ModCloth came out of CMU. Way back in the past, Lycos came out of CMU (a multi-billion $ exit back in the old days). More recently, something like Anki is a bunch of CMU engineers; GroupMe's co-founder was a CMU grad.

Also, Google has a big hub there, Uber just opened a robotics research facility,

Steel is a legacy of Pittsurgh's past, not its current. You're free to complain about Pittsburgh, but some data would be nice.