Share price would drop to 40 cents again, and SFF shareholders would lose over $200 m to make a few persons happy who would grab up SFF cheaply. Poor farmers! Beginning of the end for the FTA with China.
Printable View
Share price would drop to 40 cents again, and SFF shareholders would lose over $200 m to make a few persons happy who would grab up SFF cheaply. Poor farmers! Beginning of the end for the FTA with China.
Interesting information on John Shrimpton's involvement in purchasing land in Canterbury.
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/business/3...-deal-sff-says
I watched Stephen Joyces response to Winston Peters parlimentary question today.
Stephen seemed to so delighted with mocking Winston Peters that he was oblivious to the spluttering fuse on a barrel of gunpowder this issue is.
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
One commentators take:
http://meatexportnz.co.nz/2016/05/03...-of-democracy/
When they tried to sell 50% to PGW in 2007, they needed a binding vote of 75% to do this and only just scraped in. This time around the vote wasn't actually needed and was non-binding.
What if SFF and Maling partnership fails?
1. Goldman Sachs will still collect fees ($ xx millions?) for making the deal. Would the fees be shared by SFF and Maling? or all to be paid by SFF?
2. Grand Samuel's forecast of the NPAT of $46.6m for FY2016 was based on the assumption that Maling's capital of $261m was injected on 1 October 2015 to save a financial cost of $12.8m. This was a ridiculous assumption and the interest saving in any case cannot be realised. Would a NPAT of $35m for FY2016 achievable?
3. If a $30m NPAT could be achieved sustainably year after year it would be better not to form the partnership with Maling. The questions remain if SFF could afford paying the fees to Goldman Sachs and penalties to other parties, and whether banks would continue lending.
4. Blocking the partnership with Maling sounds good if SFF could survive alone. Otherwise a share price of 40 cents is expectable in near future.
Anything wrong?
Allan Barber posted an opinion on SFF on website, here is the link:
http://www.interest.co.nz/rural-news...rs-silver-fern
Apparently some are betting Goldman Sachs and SFF Board have made mistakes in legal aspect and thus shareholders could make the partnership agreement with Maling voidable.
I would bet the partnership deal will be completed soon. The reason is simple: Goldman Sachs is not as stupid as some SFF shareholders hoped, and the shareholders' assumption that the market would remain the same if the agreement is made voidable is unlikely true. SFF and its shareholders cannot afford the penalty cost (in relation to GS) and the non-trade barrier consequence if the agreement fails.
What the unhappy shareholders can do is to vote Mr Rob Hewett out of the board in the next election. Meanwhile, they could consider who would compensate their loss after the partnership agreement is made void. Can they blame John Shrimpton?
It won't be going ahead and SFF board are in panic mode. The level of deception from understated forecasts through to 'restructuring' are unbelievable. There will be carnage and while it might be precipitated by Shrimpton the blame lies elsewhere. Won't be much longer to wait by all accounts.
Stuff headline;
Financial authority rejects NZ First complaints over Silver Fern Farms deal
Here is how it seems to work. If I sell someone a harbour bridge and they complain to the Financial Markets Authority its not mine to sell Mr Colin Magee the FMA head of conduct contacts me. I then create a document that says movie stars don't do that sort of thing. Mr Magee then says "Thats fine, by the way can I have your autograph?"
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
"Details of special meeting" announced.
At the end of special meeting on July 11, I guess some shareholders would demand:
1) Mr Rob Hewett resign from the the board; and
2) Mr John Shrimpton put his shares on unlisted market for sale.
Statement from OIO last Friday suggests that approval would not be given before SFF special meeting. What's the point for OIO to make a decision if SFF shareholders have not decided? For the same token, Shanghai Maling would NOT bother to deal with OIO unless SFF special meeting re-approves the sale, which looks unlikely given the high hurdle of 75% approval rate.
The next logical issue would be how much SFF has to pay for the services of Goldman Sachs and others. It was SFF, not Shanghai Maling, appointed Goldman Sachs for capital raising.
Would SFF be able to continue to collaborate with Shanghai Maling after the special meeting? Probably not. The reputation of SFF board and mangers would not be regarded in China. Shanghai Maling learnt a lesson and would find alternative sources of beef from Australia and Brazil, rather than wasting time in NZ.
SFF would be 100% retained in NZ. I would expect a share price of 40 cents after the special meeting.
You hire a merchant bank for their expertise in mergers and aquisitions for which they charge a fat fee.
Having a merger(or whatever) go t*ts up because of an issue with the co-ops articles of association suggest the advice recievied was not worth the fat fee charged.
If I was Silver Fern Farms I would stiff them the fee on account of Goldman Sucks being useless.
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
SFF CEO says Shanghai Maling is still in the hunt and announces delay to special shareholder meeting.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farm...as-walked-away
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
Edit: Gazumped by Sideshow Bob
According to the press release of Mr Peters on June 30, Goldman Sachs received $695,000 a month from SFF. It started advising SFF on capital raising on November 2014. When would its service end, 4 January 2017 (the revised settlement date with Shanghai Maling)?
Regardless of their votes on August 11, SFF shareholders have to pay Goldman Sachs a huge fee, possibly 26 months * $695,000.
Now I understand why SFF management said it was a huge waste of money to hold the shareholder requisitioned
meeting.
Here is the article......interesting.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA160...fern-farms.htm
Rural commentator Allan Barber has an item on the Interest web site discussing the latest developments on the SFF takeover saga.
http://www.interest.co.nz/rural-news...ing-date-allan
He says the Shrimpton Group will have hard time getting the FMA and Companies Office to change their minds. He is correct in his assumption as both these are do-nothing organisations whoose purpose is to deflect responsibility from cabinet ministers.
Mr Shrimpton and associates would be more successful if they head to court.
The danger is after the Bell Group & others V PPCS litigation the courts may take a view that SFF is a repeat offender.
Mr Bell makes an interesting observation in this NZ Herald article about the aftermath of this litigation;
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...jectid=3581562
It is so applicable to current circumstances that I am going to quote it;
"Bell says he is not entirely convinced PPCS has learned from the messy takeover process."
He is 100% on the money and by the time it all plays out he will be the king maker next election.
It is the dream trifecta for Winston - offshore investment, domestic corruption and the big banks....
Sound bites aside - it is very ugly what is going on and it needs to be exposed.