They still need another $150m or so to keep their BB rating I think.
Progress, but whether it is quick enough is another matter.
However, they can't lose the govt guarantee just because they are dowgraded now as far as I know?
Alan.
Printable View
They still need another $150m or so to keep their BB rating I think.
Progress, but whether it is quick enough is another matter.
However, they can't lose the govt guarantee just because they are dowgraded now as far as I know?
Alan.
The readers comments in this article on the NBR web site are particularly dour;
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/torchli...estment-123287
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
Excellent find, Marilyn.
"David Hillary" seems to have run the ruler over the most recent accounting numbers and suggests that SCF is in a perilous state. From at static point of view - I agree.
I think the key statement is in the post from "Red Dog The Pirate Guy":
In this situation it is dynamics rather than statics which are the guide to the future. If the cash is flowing in - SCF and Southbury have a future. If the cash is not flowing - bad news for all stakeholders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Dog The Pirate Guy
Only Sandy Maier knows the truth - and he is not saying ... However he does seem to be playing his cards as effectively as he can to ensure positive "dynamics".
[QUOTE=Enumerate;305733]Excellent find, Marilyn.
"David Hillary" seems to have run the ruler over the most recent accounting numbers and suggests that SCF is in a perilous state. From at static point of view - I agree.
How credible is David Hillary? Looking at his blog he seems to have radical views and be
somewhat obsessed with SCF.
Westerly
Yes - he is quite out there, and as Enumerate correctly points out, his analysis is very 'static'. It is written like someone who has recently taken Accounting 101 and is doing an assignment.
Probably the only issue that matters, is whether SCF can maintain cash flow. If they do, then they'll survive - if not, then they're gone. There is certainly an interesting academic debate around the valuation of the deferred tax asset (for example), but if it were written off tomorrow, it would not, in itself, make any difference. The only thing is whether most people would understand what it meant, and if the 'market' were to panic as a result, then SCF would likely tip over as few investors put or kept their money in, or if it triggered some arbitary switch elsewhere (such as at the trustee), and that forced them over the edge.
Alan.
Fact of the matter is that a finance company can actually trade profitably with negative shareholders funds! Of course, this is not a stable financial configuration - but it is viable for a period of time. Making profits on negative equity seems to be the dream of most "master of the universe" types at top of markets.
The Fonterra payout and prospect for increased payout, next year - should be encouraging medium term news. This will help both the direct finance side of the business (create quality demand and shore up the existing default rate) and the "private equity" component (increased profits from the farming support businesses).
I think Maier is keeping his focus on the "psychological" factors - the recent press releases do not really tell us anything but tend to shore up market sentiment to SCF.
I have not invested but think that the SCF010's are still the best bet to profit from the SCF recovery without buying undue risk. The SCFHA's might look cheap - but the BLU020's, in my view, are effectively just as cheap with better security.
There are still significant downside risks ... we are still awaiting the significant news that would clearly signal a turnaround (Southbury additional equity, sale of the "bad bank" portfolio, clear figures on the debenture subscriptions rate and the payback rate on the "good bank" loan portfolio).
LOL! - Unfortunately, I think you are right!
I completely agree - I am out of SCF at this point, and in BLU020 too.
I also think the ALF010s are a better bet. Whatever the value of the Hanover assets they took on turns out to be, that figure was added behind the ALF010s as security the day the deal was done, since the assets (whatever they may be worth) are there, and all the equity on the other side slots in behind the bonds. It would be better if it was $400m, but $100m is still good (for the bond holders). I'd be a bit peeved if I was a pre-existing shareholder in ALF though!
Agree.
Alan.
S&P credit analyst Derryl D'Silva said the finance company's credit rating was cut to B+ from BB because the "restoration of its financial profile has not been quick or sufficient enough .....
..... and Sandy a bit peeved in the announcement 'Commenting on the ratings action, Chief Executive Officer Sandy Maier says Standard & Poor's goes some way towards acknowledging the progress South Canterbury Finance has achieved but in the Company's view does not give full redit for the real progress made, particularly the recent momentum in building liquidity
Spose one needs to believe Sandy
Good idea finding a job for Alan .... President for Life .... stay away from the office but come along and have a cuppa at the board meetings old fella