Tegel IPO

[Balance]

Well personally I think if they weren't going to hit forcast there would of been an annoucement by now. The financial year ended 30 April so they would have a fair idea by now. I still don't understand how there range was so wide but it's almost definite they are going to come in at the bottom end of guidance. Where to next year though? Who knows, but at around $1 you do start to see some value so long as there aren't more things Tegel is hiding.

I think the IPO was a bit of a sham but at the same time I still think Tegel is a fairly quality business that can turn it around in the next few years. It would probably be better if Affinity sold out in some ways so they can rebuild from scratch and have fresh leadership. I disagree that Affinity would of expected this SP performance in the IPO listing. At the end of the day they still hold 45% and do have to consider brand damage by a failed IPO.

Compare and contrast with Ingham - ING has announced they expect to meet prospectus forecast so stock is on PER of 12 times.

Given TGH's track record, it deserves to trade at at least a 20% discount to ING.

TGH at $1.07 has a market cap of $380m. Market is telling you to expect a profit of less than $30m.

[hardt]

Compare and contrast with Ingham - ING has announced they expect to meet prospectus forecast so stock is on PER of 12 times.

Given TGH's track record, it deserves to trade at at least a 20% discount to ING.

TGH at $1.07 has a market cap of $380m. Market is telling you to expect a profit of less than $30m.

Dumbfounded forecasting is the reason TGH has been dragged through the mud by investors...

ING had conservative forecasts that were not likely to be missed, TGH was plumped up as a high growth option for investors... right now TGH is undervalued given where it should be if forecasts are met - one month till we find out.

[Xerof]

Ogden most likely went due to disagreement over a strategic direction the PE guys want to take (most likely stuff them with debt, and up the divi's) ((thats the company not the chickens))

If thats the case, then the next chair will have room up the back of his suit jacket for a large manipulative hand and will most likely do as he is asked

JMO, but somewhere between the truth and fake news

[bottomfeeder]

Who needs an independent director who resigns at first sign of trouble. He should have stuck with it and did his job.

[Baa_Baa]

Who needs an independent director who resigns at first sign of trouble. He should have stuck with it and did his job.

Some Directors are smart enough to see the sh1t before it hits the fan, and given the liability of Director's, the smart ones get the heck out well before the calamity. Not saying that is the case here, just something to consider. Could be any number of reasons.

[percy]

Who needs an independent director who resigns at first sign of trouble. He should have stuck with it and did his job.

Not so.
The only course of action an honourable man has, when he disagrees with the major shareholder [if this is the case], is to resign.
It sends a very clear message/warning to shareholders.
This, coming on top of them not meeting their own forecasts,rings big warning bells to me.
I like compnies that do as they say they will.
Yes I sold out on the first broken forecast,and will avoid them until they can prove they are worthy of reconsideration.I have a very long memory.

[blackcap]

Who needs an independent director who resigns at first sign of trouble. He should have stuck with it and did his job.

His obligation is to the company and not the shareholders. If he was put in an untenable position by the other directors (ie they could not agree to a course of action) then what was he supposed to have done? He cannot really "stick with it and do his job" because his job is not able to be done. Sort of caught between a rock and a hard place. Go public is not an option either as that does not help the company, you cannot force other directors to do as you want, so as Percy says, there is no other action but to resign, and this should be enough warning to shareholders without actually coming out and saying that things are not as they should be.

[Balance]

Dumbfounded forecasting is the reason TGH has been dragged through the mud by investors...

ING had conservative forecasts that were not likely to be missed, TGH was plumped up as a high growth option for investors... right now TGH is undervalued given where it should be if forecasts are met - one month till we find out.

Not dumbfounded - deliberately bullish and very high, to try and extract the highest price possible from the IPO. There can be no other conclusion to be drawn from the severe profit downgrade 6 months after the IPO.

Note that most of the proceeds were used to repay the redeemable shares of the vendors?

And there in lies the big difference between Ingham and Tegel - one with 'conservative' forecasts to give the company a strong share market foundation and positive sentiment, the other with what has turned out to be wildly bullish 'high growth' forecasts to extract the highest price from the market.

One is listed on ASX and the other NZX - says a lot?

[hardt]

Not dumbfounded - deliberately bullish and very high, to try and extract the highest price possible from the IPO. There can be no other conclusion to be drawn from the severe profit downgrade 6 months after the IPO.

Note that most of the proceeds were used to repay the redeemable shares of the vendors?

And there in lies the big difference between Ingham and Tegel - one with 'conservative' forecasts to give the company a strong share market foundation and positive sentiment, the other with what has turned out to be wildly bullish 'high growth' forecasts to extract the highest price from the market.

One is listed on ASX and the other NZX - says a lot?

TGH was sold as a high growth stock... turned out to be a low/mid growth stock... is now being treated like a negative growth stock...

Underlying EBITDA did meet the forecasted $75M for 2016... how they got the rest of it so wrong raises a few suspicions for sure.

[bottomfeeder]

His obligation is to the company and not the shareholders. If he was put in an untenable position by the other directors (ie they could not agree to a course of action) then what was he supposed to have done? He cannot really "stick with it and do his job" because his job is not able to be done. Sort of caught between a rock and a hard place. Go public is not an option either as that does not help the company, you cannot force other directors to do as you want, so as Percy says, there is no other action but to resign, and this should be enough warning to shareholders without actually coming out and saying that things are not as they should be.

As chairman he had some more power to make things right. He took the easy way out.