[QUOTE=Snoopy;349958]The Special General Meeting of 28th June was well attended .........
Thanks for taking the trouble to inform allcomers, Snoopy
Printable View
[QUOTE=Snoopy;349958]The Special General Meeting of 28th June was well attended .........
Thanks for taking the trouble to inform allcomers, Snoopy
Yes thank you SNOOPY.Owners see things better than reporters.
I’m a bit late responding to this message but some things just keep niggling away at the back of your mind. I don’t like being ripped off by corporates, so I guess that’s what has kept it festering. Firstly I had to get over the shock of not all shareholders being treated equally. It has taken me some time before I was able to move on from that.
Now your explanation Winner. Superficially it reads well. But I got to thinking. There were shareholders that chose to not offer all of their PGW shares into the Agria offer (and in the extreme elected to keep all of their shares to themselves). By keeping some shares, that means that the other shareholders would have had proportionately more of their own shares accepted as the offer was scaled, not less. Your explanation, I think would imply that I should have been surprised ‘the other way’, by having more of my shares accepted than I anticipated. So I don’t think this puzzle is solved yet.
SNOOPY
Great reference Winner, and one that supports my thinking in my previous post:
“24/ The effect of the pro rata scaling provisions is that offerees who send in "excess" acceptances will have a greater proportion of their securities taken up by the offeror than offerees who only accept the offer in respect of the specified percentage of their securities or less. The scaling provisions would not be triggered if every single offeree accepts the offer and all of them accept in respect of exactly the specified percentage of their securities sought by the offeror.”
It was also revealing to read that many of the partial takeover offers that had been presented for compliance with the takeover law had run into illegality issues.
A hypothetical example of shares held in the name of a custodian was noteworthy for unequal treatment. Could that have occurred in the PGW case? Looking back on the twenty largest shareholders as listed in PGW AR2010, we see the following shareholdings are consolidated in the New Zealand Central Securities Depository Limited (NZCSD):
ACC 3.99%,
AMP Investments Strategic Equity Growth Fund 3.68%,
National Nominees New Zealand Limited 2.95%,
Citibank Nominees (New Zealand) Limited 2.75%,
HSBC Nominees (New Zealand) Limited (a/c 90) 2.55%
NZ Guardian Trust Investment Nominees Limited 1.96%
HSBC Nominees (New Zealand) Limited (a/c 45) 1.80%
NZGT Nominees Limited – AIF Equity Fund 1.60%
Asteron Life Limited 1.28%
Tea Custodians Limited 1.12%
Those are small numbers individually but add up to a not insignificant 23.68% of PGW shares. Apparently the partial takeover laws do not allow the offeror (Agria) to look through a registry holding to see who the individual shareholders are. So the company that made the takeover offer might hypothetically be offered all of ACCs, AMPs, National Nominess and NZGT shares adding up to 12.2% of total PGW shares, while all the other large custodial holders kept their shares.
Agria sees 12.2% of the 23.68% of NZCSD held shares offered to them without knowledge of exactly who has offered up their shares. Now 12.2%/23.68%= 51.6%, the same as the 51.6% of shares that Agria ultimately want. So Agria accept all of the NZCSD shares offered to them, and that means ACCs, AMP, National Nominess and NZGT are paid out in full. This is quite a different outcome for these companies than if they had held shares in their company name directly. In that instance they would have been paid out on only 51.6% of their shares, which is all the small shareholders should have got. Naturally if some shareholders get more than 51.6% of their shares accepted, that means that other shareholders will have to get less than 51.6% of their shares accepted to allow an overall average of 51.6% of shares to be accepted.
SNOOPY
Anyone following the argument will realize that this will not explain why I got less than my expected 51.6% of my remaining shares accepted. If I also had my shares with NZCSD and only applied for part of my shares to be accepted into the offer then my argument works. But since neither of those conditions are met, I still don’t know why…..!!! Still feeling ripped off.
SNOOPY
Hey guys. New to Share Trader forum. Been following PGW, how low can they go. Surely it is a good buy at these prices. I think there are people sitting on the sideline waiting for buy signals, to reinvest their money from agrai. Surely the share price will recover. Any thoughts.
Good advice. Im watching closely for the turn. Thanks