I agree - they will have to bring in new management to supplement and / or partially replace the existing team if they walk down that path.
Alan.
Printable View
LOL.
To be honest, I think that was pretty obvious.
If they had been subject to a repayment demand it would have been a material event that would have had to be disclosed to the market.
The only way anyone could think otherwise would be to suggest that the directors breached listing rules. If someone had evidence of that they should most certainly bring it out into the open, but I do not believe that such a situation arose in the recent past.
Alan.
PS: From 23c, prefs were traded today at 35c (as of 3:55pm) giving a 50% gain in three trading days, so the market seems to view the announcement last week positively. I am currently viewing 35 - 40 c as being a fair value with upside potential.
[QUOTE=Alan3285;278209]LOL.
To be honest, I think that was pretty obvious.
If they had been subject to a repayment demand it would have been a material event that would have had to be disclosed to the market.
The only way anyone could think otherwise would be to suggest that the directors breached listing rules. If someone had evidence of that they should most certainly bring it out into the open, but I do not believe that such a situation arose in the recent past.
Alan.
balance might like to ring NZX and report it
[QUOTE=temuk;278240]Laughing Out Very Very Loud. And you think the NZX cares a stuff about investors? Have you seen one single NZX price inquiry as the yield on SCF bonds kept blowing out and the value of the bonds keep dropping?
Also, SCF must now be the biggest laughing stock in the Western financial world - it is repaying US$100m of debt when it is in dire straits without the lenders requiring/demanding repayment. Wow!
Balance maybe they just demanded a very large increase in the interest rate as I beleive they were entittled to after credit rating downgrade & that was more unpallitable than paying it back
I would just like to point out that what you seem to have quoted me saying, I did not say (about you phoning the NZX) although if you know something then I would support you doing so.
However, on your point above, I wonder if there has been some misunderstanding?
I believe that SCF said they were replacing the $100m facility with a new one of $75m (and in the process unwinding some hedges that will free up additional cash)?
If so, it seems to me that re-financing is hardly an unusual thing for any business if they can get a 'better deal' (lower costs, better terms or whatever), and in doing so, the original facility would usually be repaid even if the lender had not specifically demanded repayment?
Thanks,
Alan.
Good post alan
Many wont get the point though....
BB:)
ps coz they wont want too !!!